I think the best thing for Challenge ratings would be a Duel III. If this same exact cast was on a show that featured that set-up, I think the ratings (and entertainment value) would be significantly better.
[QUOTE=iMichael;260730]I really don't think rating aren't that bad considering that the rating for Cutthroat and Fresh Meat 2 were below average. The challenge isn't really a new concept, and I don't expect to see huge increases in ratings like the Jersey Shore did. When the ratings go up for the challenges, I expect them to be a gradual increase with some bumps along the road. The challenges and Real World have proven themselves to not just be another MTV trend like other shows have. For example, right now Teen Mom is one of the Challenge's main competitors on the new work. While ratings for that show are going well, rating for 16 and pregnant are really slipping and it will be difficult to regain viewers.
The fact that the Challenge is not just another trend makes it valuable to MTV. I feel attached to the network because of the show. I've been watching MTV since I was in 4th grade and now I'm going to be a college senior. I continue to watch the network because of Challenges, and I doubt I'd invest any time into other series if it weren't for the Challenges. While I do watch Jersey Shore and Teen Mom, I don't expect to be watching them in 5 years. But I've watched people like Aneesa and Robin throughout my teen years, and I've seen them change as people. While the challenge's days may be limited I feel that they keep a lot of people attached to MTV. Most of the people I know that watch the challenges have been watching for years and continue to watch just because they have been for so long.[/QUOTE]
You don't think the ratings are "that bad?" OK, then perhaps you can also tell us why BMP told the cast in Costa Rica that they needed better ratings for this season since MTV was seriously considering not renewing the challenge contract? Other than the first episode ratings (which can be attributed to a more novel advertising approach), the bump hasn't been sustained.
Clearly something is not working since the challenges are losing more viewers each season than they are gaining, in a continuing downward trend, sometimes called the series "death spiral" in the industry. [Try graphing the past 5 challenge ratings if you don't comprehend the problem.] One also has to keep in mind that TV is a "short term memory" equation for Viacom stockholders. It's all about current and projected revenues. The warm and fuzzy history of challenge cast members apparently doesn't put money in the pockets of vulture stockholders who want results now. It's brutal, but real.
I forgot how long ago it was, but could the cancellation of TRL have anything to do with decreased ratings on the challenges? V1 just mentioned the last 5 seasons having a downward spiral, and I feel that may have been around the time of Brooklyn airing (I remember Chet learning that it was canceled) I know I wouldn't tune into MTV if the challenge was canceled, maybe others stopped watching MTV because TRL was canceled 5 seasons ago. (?)
It's like when a pastor takes a job at a new church, a lot of his former congregation leaves the previous church to follow them. Or when a stylist leaves a hair shoppe to start up there own place, people leave that first hair shoppe.
I feel canceling the challenge may hurt the ratings of Jersey Shore, Teen Mom or those other shows they think are good. When I was in high school I kept MTV on my TV as the default channel, so even if I didn't pay attention to Newlyweds, I was probably counted as a viewer because TRL and room raiders usually came before it.
Interesting interesting interesting.
To refresh everyone's memory, I work in marketing for a large CPG firm. I've bought TV advertising in the past, although my current brand does not. This is my perspective:
The show's future rests mainly on two things: The revenue vs costs portion (Reality shows are known as cheap TV vs. scripted, although people here have harped on me for playing down the shows costs in the past), and the opportunity cost; that is, how much money is MTV missing out on by airing this show instead of something else - factoring for the risk of new shows tanking.
If the show is cash positive and MTV determines that it is not worth the risk that a new show will fail to achieve the ratings The Challenge does, it will renew the show. Compared to some of MTVs other 10PM ratings, The Challenge is still mid-to-low-pack, so it is conceivable that they take this route. 1.2 is still a high bar for a new cable show to achieve.
If the show is cash positive but MTV feels it could make more money at 10PM Wednesday with something else, they may elect to move the show to a Sunday or Monday night, where they have far less risk. Loyal viewers will follow the show and MTV can milk the programs ratings until it dies quietly. This would likely involve a massive slashing of production costs.
If the program cannot cover its costs, the show is gone.
They may also elect to take another break like they did before Vegas to test other shows on Wednesday to see if they can find another hit; if the new show tanks in its first few weeks, they can pull together a Challenge in the time it would take to burn off the rest of the new show's season and air a Real World season. Its a low risk solution.
IMHO the show is poorly produced. Grantland.com hit the nail on the head this week with this insight: "Half of every Rivals show revolves around actual challenges — great news for anyone who wonders what it would be like to cross a river on 12 carefully arranged hammocks while wearing a helmet cam. Meanwhile, a raucous game of drunk truth or dare was shoehorned into Wednesday's episode as an afterthought, like the producers were saying, 'We probably need to include this, but let's just zip through it because there's no way our audience wants to see these degenerate maniacs dare each other to do deviant things and/or confess deviant things they once did. That would get old after a minute or two. They'll definitely want more of the hammock race.' I've had it with Bunim-Murray Productions and their persistent underachieving"
Its that kind of awful producing that has led to these underwhelming ratings.
I bet this is one of MTVs oldest skewing shows. If I were them I'd look for an exit strategy. I hope they dont, but I bet they will.
[QUOTE=CastAStone;260773]Interesting interesting interesting.
To refresh everyone's memory, I work in marketing for a large CPG firm. I've bought TV advertising in the past, although my current brand does not. This is my perspective:
The show's future rests mainly on two things: The revenue vs costs portion (Reality shows are known as cheap TV vs. scripted, although people here have harped on me for playing down the shows costs in the past), and the opportunity cost; that is, how much money is MTV missing out on by airing this show instead of something else - factoring for the risk of new shows tanking.
If the show is cash positive and MTV determines that it is not worth the risk that a new show will fail to achieve the ratings The Challenge does, it will renew the show. Compared to some of MTVs other 10PM ratings, The Challenge is still mid-to-low-pack, so it is conceivable that they take this route. 1.2 is still a high bar for a new cable show to achieve.
If the show is cash positive but MTV feels it could make more money at 10PM Wednesday with something else, they may elect to move the show to a Sunday or Monday night, where they have far less risk. Loyal viewers will follow the show and MTV can milk the programs ratings until it dies quietly. This would likely involve a massive slashing of production costs.
If the program cannot cover its costs, the show is gone.
They may also elect to take another break like they did before Vegas to test other shows on Wednesday to see if they can find another hit; if the new show tanks in its first few weeks, they can pull together a Challenge in the time it would take to burn off the rest of the new show's season and air a Real World season. Its a low risk solution.
IMHO the show is poorly produced. Grantland.com hit the nail on the head this week with this insight: "Half of every Rivals show revolves around actual challenges — great news for anyone who wonders what it would be like to cross a river on 12 carefully arranged hammocks while wearing a helmet cam. Meanwhile, a raucous game of drunk truth or dare was shoehorned into Wednesday's episode as an afterthought, like the producers were saying, 'We probably need to include this, but let's just zip through it because there's no way our audience wants to see these degenerate maniacs dare each other to do deviant things and/or confess deviant things they once did. That would get old after a minute or two. They'll definitely want more of the hammock race.' I've had it with Bunim-Murray Productions and their persistent underachieving"
Its that kind of awful producing that has led to these underwhelming ratings.
I bet this is one of MTVs oldest skewing shows. If I were them I'd look for an exit strategy. I hope they dont, but I bet they will.[/QUOTE]
Nice to see your comments. I've been feeling lonely lately without an adverising perspective to balance my network-centric views.
I attribute the poor production to the high change over in story editors (that's what near minimum wage does to TV quality) and waiting far to long to finally jetison a badly flawed and failed executive producer (Justin Booth). Jon and Scott are very bright and very creative executives who should never have let show quality fall to the present level. Just turing to HD as a saving solution only made the "bad" production more vivid and obvious.
[QUOTE=eric555;260778]I don't think reality tv can go on if the Real World and the Challenges get cannclled because their the founders of our whole reality tv mind set.[/QUOTE]
I know a number of reality TV production people who think little of the RW or challenges other than that they have long since outlived their usefullness to the genre. Among those naysayers is a major show creator who has had two top 5 hit network shows since leaving bmp years ago.
[QUOTE=SkylarGuy23;260791]I wonder how much production cost would be cut back if the challenges weren't filmed in luxurious mansions with $2,000 a week alcohol budgets?[/QUOTE]
cut back = peanuts... (and officially, bmp has said the cast pays for their own alcohol)
~~~~
In comparison here's something that may be a trend which is putting pressure on all the MTV networks executives...
'[I] VH1 has greenlit a second season of the breakout scripted drama/comedy series “Single Ladies.” The network’s first hour-long scripted series, “Single Ladies” has become a certified hit, averaging 2.8 million total viewers during premiere plus first encore each Monday night. Paired with VH1′s unscripted series “Basketball Wives,” the network is ranked #1 on cable with women in the key 18-34 demo Monday nights (8pm-12am) on cable since both series’ May 30 premieres.[/I]"
One last thought - the show has to be making money for [I]both[/I] BMP and MTV. It is totally conceivable to think that MTV will offer to renew the show for $X million and BMP will be the one that says no. Sometimes a production company will let a network show lose money for a while because they can make it up in syndication and DVD sales, but no one syndicates the Challenge and its not on DVD.
P.S. pardon the stream of consciousness but I would buy every single season of the show on DVD if they let me. I assume its a music rights issue - someone would have to put new music into every single episode.
[QUOTE=V1man;260768]You don't think the ratings are "that bad?" OK, then perhaps you can also tell us why BMP told the cast in Costa Rica that they needed better ratings for this season since MTV was seriously considering not renewing the challenge contract? Other than the first episode ratings (which can be attributed to a more novel advertising approach), the bump hasn't been sustained.
Clearly something is not working since the challenges are losing more viewers each season than they are gaining, in a continuing downward trend, sometimes called the series "death spiral" in the industry. [Try graphing the past 5 challenge ratings if you don't comprehend the problem.] One also has to keep in mind that TV is a "short term memory" equation for Viacom stockholders. It's all about current and projected revenues. The warm and fuzzy history of challenge cast members apparently doesn't put money in the pockets of vulture stockholders who want results now. It's brutal, but real.[/QUOTE]
I can recognize that the ratings are bad, but ratings for this season aren't as bad as FM2 or Cutthroat at this point in the season. FM2 was really a low point for the challenges, but they are showing a little bit of a rebound.
I'm sure the producers of the show told the cast they needed better ratings for 2 reasons. Firstly...it's true. Secondly, they want good footage. I believe that the producers have told this to the cast in the past. The Gauntlet 3 comes to mind here (although they were in a similar situation).
But what you say about "short term memory" for stockholders certainly does make sense. Stockholders aren't concerned with the history of the show, but it is enough to keep me watching.
[QUOTE=V1man;260837]cut back = peanuts... (and officially, bmp has said the cast pays for their own alcohol)[/QUOTE]
Ahh ok, I just remembered a podcast a while back where Johnny mentioned an alcohol budget, and that in other countries it went an extremely long way.
I guess that was a long time ago however. Scary thought still because I couldn't imagine drinking $100's of dollars a week in alcohol. 0.o
And I guess equaling to peanuts is saying that the mansion cutback would be equal to nothing in the long run?
[QUOTE=SkylarGuy23;260883]Ahh ok, I just remembered a podcast a while back where Johnny mentioned an alcohol budget, and that in other countries it went an extremely long way.
I guess that was a long time ago however. Scary thought still because I couldn't imagine drinking $100's of dollars a week in alcohol. 0.o
And I guess equaling to peanuts is saying that the mansion cutback would be equal to nothing in the long run?[/QUOTE]
$100 USD = 50,250 Costa Rican colóns. Beer and liquor is generally inexpensive in Costa Rica, and from what I've been told, you have to work HARD to spend a lot of money (as in, more than $25 a head) in a restaurant there.
And the local stuff is generally cheaper than the imported stuff, which is actually cool as you get to try the local liquors. It also makes sense when the cast comes back and talks about specific types of beer or liquor.
[QUOTE=Debut Album;260864]V1 Can you tell us who that Major show creator is that doesn't think much of these shows?[/QUOTE]
Assuming it's Matt Kunitz, who helped make Fear Factor and Wipeout, although he is also responsible for The One, which was one of the biggest flops of all-time on TV. Was behind some of RW's best seasons though.
Anyway BMP needs to make the challenge fun again and not just extreme strongman or odd hammock-based competitions. Old seasons have a feeling of the cast had graduated from RW/high school and were now in college, nowadays it seems more like prison. Also, the ratings are down, so let's cast Paula again for the 8th time, Sarah for her fourth straight season, and center it around fresh meat ii that other viewers aren't familiar with, good thinking. Although once Road Rules ended this show had its clock ticking...
[QUOTE=Debut Album;260864]V1 Can you tell us who that Major show creator is that doesn't think much of these shows?[/QUOTE]
If I had intended ever to mention a name, I would have. While some might think it's obvious, there is a reason I frequently don't name names -- it provides deniability on the other end.
[QUOTE=eric555;260914]Isn't the show about to get new producers[/QUOTE]
No, the production company is not changing. I believe BMP actually owns the show. If there is another challenge, the show's executive producer actually running the challenge on location will change. Jonathan Murray and Scott Freeman will still be executive producers from a distance (Van Nuys, CA).
So the VMA nominations are getting announced in between the first airing of the new episode of Rivals and the replay of the episode immediately after tonight. This SHOULD be good for ratings, right?
[QUOTE=Nightwolf;261326]So the VMA nominations are getting announced in between the first airing of the new episode of Rivals and the replay of the episode immediately after tonight. This SHOULD be good for ratings, right?[/QUOTE]
*Knocks on wood* I sure hope so..
[QUOTE=Nightwolf;261326]So the VMA nominations are getting announced in between the first airing of the new episode of Rivals and the replay of the episode immediately after tonight. This SHOULD be good for ratings, right?[/QUOTE]
Plus there's one of those previews for the movie Friends With Benefits.
[QUOTE=Debut Album;261359]Honestly I don't see why MTV is thinking of canceling the Challenges. The ratings haven't been all that bad honestly.[/QUOTE]
I recommend this post from an advertising insider for your edification: [URL="http://vevmo.com/f187/the-challenge-rivals-ratings-5781/index18.html#post260773"]http://vevmo.com/f187/the-challenge-rivals-ratings-5781/index18.html#post260773[/URL]
So here's a question. Is the target demo 12-34 or 18-49?
I was under the impression it was 18-49 (the demo I can find the most data on).
So comparing Rivals to the show Teen Wolf (which just got renewed for a second season):
Teen Wolf got a .07 rating Monday in the 18-49 demo on Monday and a 0.6 the week before. Rivals got a 0.9 rating in the 18-49 demo last Wednesday and 1.0 the week before. Also the overall ratings for Teen Wolf were slightly higher, I though the 18-49 demo was the one that mainly counts.
So considering Teen Wolf's renewal, I think Rivals isn't doing terrible. Also, Teen Wolf's a scripted show, which typically cost more to make.
[QUOTE=iMichael;261508]So here's a question. Is the target demo 12-34 or 18-49?
I was under the impression it was 18-49 (the demo I can find the most data on).
So comparing Rivals to the show Teen Wolf (which just got renewed for a second season):
Teen Wolf got a .07 rating Monday in the 18-49 demo on Monday and a 0.6 the week before. Rivals got a 0.9 rating in the 18-49 demo last Wednesday and 1.0 the week before. Also the overall ratings for Teen Wolf were slightly higher, I though the 18-49 demo was the one that mainly counts.
So considering Teen Wolf's renewal, I think Rivals isn't doing terrible. Also, Teen Wolf's a scripted show,[B] which typically cost more to make.[/B][/QUOTE]
Did you read this in some badly sourced article that pre-dates the recession (depression)? Lots of programs are being made as cheaply as possible today. The trend is for scripted programming to become less expensive, while successful reality programs are becoming more expensive.
As for the various demographics... it depends entirely on how MTV sees its audience (younger is better). The 18 - 49 tranche is an expanded demographic that on the lower end encompasses the upper end of MTV's perfect demo, and on the upper end, fully captures VH1's demo. In recent years, MTV has touted in its press releases it's ratings success in the 12 - 34 age range.
For example from zap2it.com:
[QUOTE]While hardly at "Jersey Shore" levels, the Las Vegas-set season debuted to 1.7 million viewers and led all of TV in its timeslot among MTV's target 12-34 demographic. [/QUOTE]
I was reading the Miz's recap of the Gauntlet 1 and he said "the final episode was the highest rated challenge episode ever with a 4.0 rating."
DANG! I wish the challenges would get ratings like that now... basically 2.5 million more viewers than now.
[QUOTE=V1man;261704]Did you read this in some badly sourced article that pre-dates the recession (depression)? Lots of programs are being made as cheaply as possible today. The trend is for scripted programming to become less expensive, while successful reality programs are becoming more expensive.
As for the various demographics... it depends entirely on how MTV sees its audience (younger is better). The 18 - 49 tranche is an expanded demographic that on the lower end encompasses the upper end of MTV's perfect demo, and on the upper end, fully captures VH1's demo. In recent years, MTV has touted in its press releases it's ratings success in the 12 - 34 age range.
For example from zap2it.com:[/QUOTE]
That makes sense. I'd guess that Teen Wolf is one of the cheaper shows to make as well. I also thought that the 12-34 demo is a better representation of MTV's target audience, but the 18-49 demo is more readily available.
"MTV’s Challenge Rivals was also up a tenth to a 1.0 adults 18-49 rating"
[url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10981][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/34674e28969889d8a.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10982][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/34674e2896b157745.png[/img][/url]
[URL="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/07/21/wednesday-cable-ratings-storage-wars-royal-pains-necessary-roughness-franklin-bash-rosannes-nuts-more/98610/"]via[/URL]
[QUOTE=iMichael;261750]That makes sense. I'd guess that Teen Wolf is one of the cheaper shows to make as well. [B]I also thought that the 12-34 demo is a better representation of MTV's target audience, but the 18-49 demo is more readily available.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well Said. I think if MTV could measure 21-23 year-olds they would. That's such a critical age - you're old enough to buy alcohol, you likely have a job giving you money for the first time in your life (and if you live with your parents, you have a lot of it to spend however you like), and you're testing lots of different products and brands to find what you like. By your late 20s you have a favorite shampoo, a favorite jeans brand, a car that you like, etc, but in your early 20s you're still figuring all of that out. Statistics show that people are MUCH more likely to change brand loyalties when their younger. People who are 13-20 are also in this exploration phase, but they're a lot broke-er. Every year older a viewer gets, the less likely your advertising is to influence them.
Add that to the fact that MTV runs all that movie advertising, especially on Wednesdays and Thursdays, (many movies want HALF their viewers to be under 25!!!), and it becomes easy to see why advertisers want young adults as their primary viewers. There is an 18-24 number, that's what I would presume is really most important. 12-24, 12-34, and 18-34 all provide insight into how successful the show is with the viewers that matter, and I've seen MTV trumpet all three numbers in the past with various shows.
Pages