Real World: St Thomas - Ratings

360 posts / 0 new
Last post
DirecTV is resorting to bribes... [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14134][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/14ffdcc59db3dc.jpg[/img][/url] [QUOTE=FishHooks;310940]I blame Direct TV not Viacom.[/QUOTE] I actually side with DirecTV to some extent with this specific dispute. As a customer who doesn't want a handful of children's channels yet is forced to pay for them, I think forced bundling has to stop. Out of the 17 Viacom channels that were pulled, I have only tuned into 4 of them in the past year. So why am I paying for the 13 others?
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
[QUOTE=Bacchus;310941] I actually side with DirecTV to some extent with this specific dispute. As a customer who doesn't want a handful of children's channels yet is forced to pay for them, I think forced bundling has to stop. Out of the 17 Viacom channels that were pulled, I have only tuned into 4 of them in the past year. So why am I paying for the 13 others?[/QUOTE] Why should you have a la carte pricing when cable customers do not. The reality is everybody is in that boat. Why are we paying for Spanish stations when we don't speak Spanish (we as in my family)? As a practical matter for every channel that I watch there was a point in time when I did not watch it and if it had not been on my TV I would never have watched it to begin with and a great many channels would fold if they were not included in the packaged line-up like Weather Channel.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310946]Why should you have a la carte pricing when cable customers do not. [/QUOTE] I'm saying everyone should have that option. The current system is broken... If it was up to me, I'd pay for MTV and Comedy Central and dump the other 15. Yes, I do watched that best pranks show on VH1 (which runs in a loop) and also tune into Spike for the never ending Star Wars marathon from time to time - but I'd be fine without them. Out of all the Viacom shows, I only watch The Real World/The Challenge/Punk'd and The Daily Show on a regular basis. That is it. So what am I paying per hour of Viacom television that I actually watch? I am guessing much more than it is worth being the shows are already buried in commercials. It's time to decouple.
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][QUOTE=V1man;310760]MTV executives saw the footage from this season before making their scheduling decisions. Perhaps they decided to write off the season and starting the last week in June was a way to begin burning through the episodes to allow for a hopefully good fall challenge to be squarely in the middle of the Fall Sweeps.[/QUOTE][/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I agreed with you until I saw this desperate ploy for ratings: [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://remotecontrol.mtv.com/2012/07/11/real-world-st-thomas-livestream-ct/"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]Watch Tonight's 'Real World' Along With Infamous Alumnus CT[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I want to believe that they saw the footage, recognized the snoozefest that it is and planned to burn off episodes before people even realize there was a St. Thomas season. But why bring in their golden boy to save their sunken ship? I’m sure CT is being compensated and not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. I’m starting to think that they didn’t anticipate it being this bad. Is it too early(or is it even possible) for advertisers to pull out sponsorships of The Challenge based on The Real World ratings?[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]As an aside, MTV must like CT’s publicity pull. He was the first one to do the MTV twitter takeover and I think he’s the first to do a livestream.[/FONT][/COLOR]
I'm personally sick of them playing the DirecTV ad every time I go to MTV.com...
[QUOTE=molds13;309646]Well, to be fair, San Diego was coming off Las Vegas. And St Thomas...well, they were coming off San Diego. I have a feeling MTV lost a lot of casual Real World viewers last season.[/QUOTE] RW: SD2 was so, so terrible. It made me not want to watch Key West...but I finally did. I'm glad I did though.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/tech/web/directv-viacom-dispute-reactions/index.html?hpt=hp_t2]Web wails as DirecTV channels go dark[/url] [QUOTE]It's a [B]first-world problem[/B] of epic proportions, and the couch potatoes of the Web aren't pleased.[/QUOTE] [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14137][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/14ffde05512098.jpg[/img][/url]
They are really going to war today... [url=http://www.change.org/petitions/viacom-stop-strong-arming-directv-to-give-you-more-money-and-lying-about-it]Viacom: Stop strong-arming DirecTV to give you more money and lying about it![/url] [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14139][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/14ffde3844634c.jpg[/img][/url] What are the odds they get this hammered out by 10PM? :D
[QUOTE=Bacchus;310956][url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/tech/web/directv-viacom-dispute-reactions/index.html?hpt=hp_t2]Web wails as DirecTV channels go dark[/url] [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14137][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/14ffde05512098.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] hahaha I love this! I have U-Verse and we almost lost AMC and IFC. I def would've switched providers if that happened.
[QUOTE=eggs78;310951][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I agreed with you until I saw this desperate ploy for ratings: [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://remotecontrol.mtv.com/2012/07/11/real-world-st-thomas-livestream-ct/"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]Watch Tonight's 'Real World' Along With Infamous Alumnus CT[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I want to believe that they saw the footage, recognized the snoozefest that it is and planned to burn off episodes before people even realize there was a St. Thomas season. But why bring in their golden boy to save their sunken ship? I’m sure CT is being compensated and not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. I’m starting to think that they didn’t anticipate it being this bad. Is it too early(or is it even possible) for advertisers to pull out sponsorships of The Challenge based on The Real World ratings?[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]As an aside, MTV must like CT’s publicity pull. He was the first one to do the MTV twitter takeover and I think he’s the first to do a livestream.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Too little, too late? Probably. This indicates to me that I was right that MTV thought the season would not be great, but they were likely very surprised at the actual early ratings. It would not shock me to learn that the execs at MTV networks -- one step up the corporate ladder from MTV -- expressed extreme displeasure and the MTV folks with jobs on the like had to do what they could (aka CT) to save the season and maybe the franchise. RW is not cheap to produce compared to other reality shows. Do the math; it's not hard to compute how a low budget show in the same time slot might be a better return on MTV's investment if the viewership remains below 1M (it won't) this week. As for the VIACOM add on MTV.com, it must be written by the same people who write political campaign commercials. The fact is that VIACOM send a letter to DirecTV telling them to turn off the channels last night after negotiations failed. DirecTV had requested that the they be permitted, for the benefit of their customers, to continue showing the channels while negotiations continued. Duplicity, my friends, pure duplicity by VIACOM, a company in which I own a ton of stock.
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
[QUOTE=V1man;310966] RW is not cheap to produce compared to other reality shows. Do the math; it's not hard to compute how a low budget show in the same time slot might be a better return on MTV's investment if the viewership remains below 1M (it won't) this week. As for the VIACOM add on MTV.com, it must be written by the same people who write political campaign commercials. The fact is that VIACOM send a letter to DirecTV telling them to turn off the channels last night after negotiations failed. DirecTV had requested that the they be permitted, for the benefit of their customers, to continue showing the channels while negotiations continued. Duplicity, my friends, pure duplicity by VIACOM, a company in which I own a ton of stock.[/QUOTE] Not to put you on the spot, but if you know, could you give us a ballpark on how much the show budget might be for a season? $5M $10M $20M? I have never heard a guestimate of that and would take any # you throw out their with the appropriate grain of salt, and dash of Tabasco. If I were Viacom, I wouldn't want them running my content out of contract. There would be no way to ensure I was paid at whatever the new price will be. If the current pricing schedule was created 7 years ago as alleged in some reports, I can understand Viacom wanting more now.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310970]Not to put you on the spot, but if you know, could you give us a ballpark on how much the show budget might be for a season? $5M $10M $20M? I have never heard a guestimate of that and would take any # you throw out their with the appropriate grain of salt, and dash of Tabasco. ...[/QUOTE] Putting me on the spot, as you say, isn't going to get me to give up a number. ;) My attorney would kick my ***, since I'd be violating specific advice previously given. What I can tell you is that I've been in network meetings (not MTV) where the offer on the table was $125,000 per episode to the production company. The expense to profit ratio was up to us as long as we were able to provide a product that met the deliverable conditions in the contract. It's no wonder that reality producers are driving around LA in black Mercedes, BMWs, and Escalades while normal cast people are driving beaters from the 1990s.
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
[QUOTE=V1man;310977]Putting me on the spot, as you say, isn't going to get me to give up a number. ;) My attorney would kick my ***, since I'd be violating specific advice previously given. What I can tell you is that I've been in network meetings (not MTV) where the offer on the table was $125,000 per episode to the production company. The expense to profit ratio was up to us as long as we were able to provide a product that met the deliverable conditions in the contract. It's no wonder that reality producers are driving around LA in black Mercedes, BMWs, and Escalades while normal cast people are driving beaters from the 1990s.[/QUOTE] Thanks. Had to ask eventually LOL. I would have anticipated it to be closer to $250K per episode or about $3M a season for a generic reality show of some caliber on a cable network of some caliber. I have heard that some reality shows pay nothing at all, but people do them on the somewhat misguided notion that they will become rich if they can just get their foot in the door. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point people are going to start having to pay to be on the shows.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310979]Thanks. Had to ask eventually LOL. I would have anticipated it to be closer to $250K per episode or about $3M a season for a generic reality show of some caliber on a cable network of some caliber. I have heard that some reality shows pay nothing at all, but people do them on the somewhat misguided notion that they will become rich if they can just get their foot in the door. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point people are going to start having to pay to be on the shows.[/QUOTE] I've had people offer to pay me if I could get them cast for a particular reality show. If I recall correctly, the cast for the early NBC "Average Joe" reality series were paid $25 per day per diem, nothing more.
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
[QUOTE=Bacchus;310950]I'm saying everyone should have that option. The current system is broken... If it was up to me, I'd pay for MTV and Comedy Central and dump the other 15. Yes, I do watched that best pranks show on VH1 (which runs in a loop) and also tune into Spike for the never ending Star Wars marathon from time to time - but I'd be fine without them. Out of all the Viacom shows, I only watch The Real World/The Challenge/Punk'd and The Daily Show on a regular basis. That is it. So what am I paying per hour of Viacom television that I actually watch? I am guessing much more than it is worth being the shows are already buried in commercials. It's time to decouple.[/QUOTE] If you are saying providers should have the option of carrying some Viacom channels and not others, sure. If you are advocating for only paying for the shows you watch and not even the other shows on the station, you are insane. That could only be done with a very expensive fiber optic network that we do not have in our infrastructure. There would inevitably be dead air for times when nobody was watching to make it worth showing; the quality of programming would plummet when the money started drying up. And above all else, figuring out how to use my damn remote is hard enough already just to do basic things. It would be so complicated for everything to essentially be ppv, people would give up and then the whining about why do I have to pay three times when 3 different TV's are on at the same time to 3 different channels and other such complaints would take over.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310984]If you are saying providers should have the option of carrying some Viacom channels and not others, sure. If you are advocating for only paying for the shows you watch and not even the other shows on the station, you are insane. That could only be done with a very expensive fiber optic network that we do not have in our infrastructure. There would inevitably be dead air for times when nobody was watching to make it worth showing; the quality of programming would plummet when the money started drying up. And above all else, figuring out how to use my damn remote is hard enough already just to do basic things. It would be so complicated for everything to essentially be ppv, people would give up and then the whining about why do I have to pay three times when 3 different TV's are on at the same time to 3 different channels and other such complaints would take over.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B][I][U][SIZE="5"]you are insane.[/SIZE][/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE] Personally, I would never say this in public to the website owner. I don't have a death wish.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310984]If you are advocating for only paying for the shows you watch and not even the other shows on the station, you are insane. [/QUOTE] Insane? Isn't that what you do when you buy individual shows on Amazon or iTunes? That business model seems to be working as A La Carte subscriptions, [URL="http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/27/cable-providers-mull-switch-to-a-la-carte-subscriptions/"]are back on the table[/URL] from big providers because people are moving to netflix and other digital venues - thusly cutting the cord. That said, I was not exactly advocating buying shows on a per view basis. What I was saying is that I only watch Viacom a few hours a month, so I know whatever they are charging is way more than it is worth now, let alone at a 30% premium - to me as an individual. I would only want to purchase those channels which were of value to me (MTV/Comedy) and get a cost savings from the other 15 I never watch... Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with 25 Basic HD channels (of my choosing) total along with my RSNs and a few premiums (HBO/Showtime.) I don't need the entire satellite/cable buffet or its price tag.
Just to put this money argument into some perspective, last year deadline.com published the yearly compensation for some media executives. Here are a couple from VIACOM. Philippe Dauman, VIACOM’s CEO since 2006: (For 2010) $84.5 million ($2.6 million salary, $41.8 million in stock awards, $28.6 million in option awards, $11.3 million in cash and nearly $200,000 in other compensation including $118,000 for personal use of the Viacom plane). Tom Dooley, VIACOM's COO, (2010) $64.7 million No wonder they need an additional $1 billion from DirecTV customers!
bayday
Anonymous's picture
The scheduling for this Real World has been horrible! Last week was July 4th, and now this week it's up against the ESPY awards. They should have either premiered it much sooner. There was also a gap between San Diego, and that season was horrible! It's sad cause I love this cast, and the ratings have been horrible.
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
[QUOTE=Bacchus;310988]Insane? Isn't that what you do when you buy individual shows on Amazon or iTunes? That business model seems to be working as A La Carte subscriptions, [URL="http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/27/cable-providers-mull-switch-to-a-la-carte-subscriptions/"]are back on the table[/URL] from big providers because people are moving to netflix and other digital venues - thusly cutting the cord. That said, I was not exactly advocating buying shows on a per view basis. What I was saying is that I only watch Viacom a few hours a month, so I know whatever they are charging is way more than it is worth now, let alone at a 30% premium - to me as an individual. I would only want to purchase those channels which were of value to me (MTV/Comedy) and get a cost savings from the other 15 I never watch... Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with 25 Basic HD channels (of my choosing) total along with my RSNs and a few premiums (HBO/Showtime.) I don't need the entire satellite/cable buffet or its price tag.[/QUOTE] 300 million people aren't buying multiple shows everyday from Amazon/itunes. I do not believe that there is sufficient infrastructure to support a 100% ppv system. It would require basically the complete integration of the internet and TV onto a single system and a sporadically existing fiber optic system open mainly to internet now would take forever to integrate into a workable nationwide grid IMO. I think what you would find from a business perspective would be that buying just the channels you want would be turned into an even more profitable system for the service providers at the expense of the subscribers and the producers
Real World was not in the top 100 last night. The lowest had 756,000 viewers. That is not good. [url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/07/12/wednesday-cable-ratings-espy-awards-win-night-royal-pains-dallas-necessary-roughness-baby-daddy-melissa-joey-more/141312/]Wednesday Cable Ratings: ‘Espy Awards’ Win Night, ‘Royal Pains’, ‘Dallas’, ‘Necessary Roughness’, ‘Baby Daddy’, ‘Melissa & Joey’ & More[/url]
So will this be the last season? Or do they have one more on contract?
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/showbiz/tv/viacom-directv-dispute/]Viacom yanks free online programming; dispute continues with DirecTV[/url] [QUOTE]As the dispute between Viacom and DirecTV continued Wednesday, [B]the conglomerate yanked access[/B] to some of its more popular programming that was available free on company websites. Fans can no longer watch full episodes of shows like "SpongeBob Squarepants" and "iCarly" or "Jersey Shore" and "The Daily Show," which is sure to further anger the 20 million DirecTV subscribers who continue to find a dark screen when they change the channel to Viacom-owned nets like Nick, MTV, Comedy Central and VH1. [/QUOTE] They must have forgot about The Real World or more likely they just don't care...
[QUOTE=LaneV95;311157]So will this be the last season? Or do they have one more on contract?[/QUOTE] Contracts for TV shows are easily cancelled. If the viewer numbers for RW fell below 756,000 last night, I will be beyond shocked. I'd love to hear from someone in the advertising community who has specific knowledge here, but my take is that the absence of DirecTV viewers would only have a small impact, far less than the 500,000 difference between Eps 1 and 2. What that means is that viewers of Ep 1 who didn't watch on the 4th, opted out again last night. Twice absent, I don't see them returning. My view, as someone who has been in the TV business on and off for several decades, is that the show is on life support. Desperate measures such as CT's on-line appearance last night, are evidence.
[QUOTE=molds13;311154]Real World was not in the top 100 last night. The lowest had 756,000 viewers. That is not good. [URL="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/07/12/wednesday-cable-ratings-espy-awards-win-night-royal-pains-dallas-necessary-roughness-baby-daddy-melissa-joey-more/141312/"]Wednesday Cable Ratings: ‘Espy Awards’ Win Night, ‘Royal Pains’, ‘Dallas’, ‘Necessary Roughness’, ‘Baby Daddy’, ‘Melissa & Joey’ & More[/URL][/QUOTE] Futurama (the only show on Viacom I saw on that chart) lost about 24% of its total viewing audience. If The Real World had kept the same numbers as the premiere and suffered the same percentage loss, it would have been a .4 18-49 demo with about 913,000 viewers. It obviously didn't keep the same numbers as the premiere though. If I were to take a guess it would be a .3 in the 18-49 demo and about 800,000 total viewers.
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
I'd say it is time for the editors to splice together pictures of Robb and Trey naked and leak it to the gay sites. Maybe Latoya too to the girl sites, but the other girls not so much. LOL. Gotta create some sensation.....
I Missed it due to having DirecTV. ********. I heard the episode was really good.
I'm not sure why ratings are so bad I mean San Diego 2 sucked yet they cracked at least a million viewers an episode. However this season the general consensus is that this is a good season thus far I wonder if indeed The Real World is on Life Support and MTV really wants to pull the plug. Since its the 27th season I hope they do 3 more seasons so they can break the 30 season mark which from my knowledge would be a record for a reality television show.
Honestly I just hope it stays on long enough for me to at least apply.
They might have just forgotten to put it in the list. I'm sure it did better than 700,000 viewers.

Pages