"Monk finished the summer as the #1 most-watched original cable drama
for P25-54 viewers, topping #2 The Closer by 54,000 P25-54 impressions.
Monk's 10pm season finale delivered a 4.25 HH rating and 2.469 million
P25-54's, up +4% in HH ratings and +6% in P25-54s vs. the program's
average for the season. The Closer has two episodes remaining in
September and will need to average 2.598 million P25-54s (+13% above
the program's 2.301 Million P25-54 average) in those episodes to
surpass Monk in this key demographic."

The P25-54 demo is the key demographic for advertising and a big win
for the network. Monk was #1 Friday night in all basic cable prime. The
repeat at 12am was the #4 telecast of the day. On Friday night, the
finale made USA Network the top rated basic cable network and was the
#1 network overall (including broadcast nets) among W19-49 and W25-54
for the hour.

"extex" <tppbfan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125444043.750266.147170@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> "Monk finished the summer as the #1 most-watched original cable drama
> for P25-54 viewers, topping #2 The Closer by 54,000 P25-54 impressions.
> Monk's 10pm season finale delivered a 4.25 HH rating and 2.469 million
> P25-54's, up +4% in HH ratings and +6% in P25-54s vs. the program's
> average for the season. The Closer has two episodes remaining in
> September and will need to average 2.598 million P25-54s (+13% above
> the program's 2.301 Million P25-54 average) in those episodes to
> surpass Monk in this key demographic."
>
> The P25-54 demo is the key demographic for advertising and a big win
> for the network. Monk was #1 Friday night in all basic cable prime. The
> repeat at 12am was the #4 telecast of the day. On Friday night, the
> finale made USA Network the top rated basic cable network and was the
> #1 network overall (including broadcast nets) among W19-49 and W25-54
> for the hour.

Yes, but let's compare this to a series that actually has a resaonable
amount of episodes, and total them up. If ya got a top ranked show, mighten
ya want to have more episodes to sell more commercial time in there!

I wonder what USA and Monk's ratings will be this Friday!

LSL

Steve Latham wrote:
> Yes, but let's compare this to a series that actually has a resaonable
> amount of episodes, and total them up. If ya got a top ranked show, mighten
> ya want to have more episodes to sell more commercial time in there!
>
> I wonder what USA and Monk's ratings will be this Friday!
>
> LSL
You mean you'd like to compare it to network shows? I don't think so,
Steve. I can't imagine why you want to put a bad spin on great ratings.
All cable shows have shorter seasons than network shows.

Friday? If you're talking about the ratings for "Mr. Monk and Little
Monk" which aired last Friday here they are from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/nielsen-more.htm

1. MTV Video Music Awards MTV 8.0
2. The Closer TNT 5.3
2. Monk USA 5.3
4. WWE Raw (10 p.m.) Spike 5.0
5. WWE Raw (9 p.m.) Spike 4.7


Face it, Monk is a phenomenal success by cable standards, which is
where it airs, so that all that counts.

"Teresa1643" <teresa1643@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125455094.567976.282500@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Steve Latham wrote:
>> Yes, but let's compare this to a series that actually has a resaonable
>> amount of episodes, and total them up. If ya got a top ranked show,
>> mighten
>> ya want to have more episodes to sell more commercial time in there!
>>
>> I wonder what USA and Monk's ratings will be this Friday!
>>
>> LSL
> You mean you'd like to compare it to network shows?

Well, I'd like to know how network shows compare to cable shows, but just in
general - like how many people watched the number one network show, versus
how many peopl watched the number one cable show.

I don't think so,
> Steve. I can't imagine why you want to put a bad spin on great ratings.
> All cable shows have shorter seasons than network shows.

But Monk seems to have even shorter seasons than other cable shows too -
that's what I'm griping about. But my point still stands - if you're making
money off the product, it seems like you'd want more of it than less of it,
for more of the period of the fiscal year - unless for some reason the
production costs are eating away at the profits?????

>
> Friday? If you're talking about the ratings for "Mr. Monk and Little
> Monk" which aired last Friday here they are from USA Today:
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/nielsen-more.htm

No, I'm talking about this coming Friday - when it's in repeat against other
cable shows (like BSG etc. that are still in "new season/new spisode" mode).


> Face it, Monk is a phenomenal success by cable standards, which is
> where it airs, so that all that counts.

Yes, so why don't they put some more "oomph" behind it? I like the show
enough to wish it was even better, otherwise, I wouldn't care.

Steve

Steve Latham wrote:
> Well, I'd like to know how network shows compare to cable shows, but justin
> general - like how many people watched the number one network show, versus
> how many people watched the number one cable show.

What difference does that make? Top 20 network shows usually get a
total audience of anywhere from 7 to 20 million. Here are the network
ratings for this week:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/nielsen.htm. That has nothing
to do with Monk or how successful it is. Networks have a much larger
audience to pull from. No cable shows could be called successful if
you compare their numbers to network numbers. That's why there are two
separate ratings reports. It's apples and oranges.

> But Monk seems to have even shorter seasons than other cable shows too -
> that's what I'm griping about.

Shorter than which shows? The Closer? Rescue Me? The Shield? Deadwood?
Kojak? The Dead Zone? BattleStar Galactica? They all have shorter
seasons than Monk. So once again, what is it you're griping about?

> But my point still stands - if you're making
> money off the product, it seems like you'd want more of it than less of it,
> for more of the period of the fiscal year - unless for some reason the
> production costs are eating away at the profits?????

It's simply the cable industry standard. There's nothing wrong or bad
about the length of Monk's seasons. Besides, I know that all the cast
enjoy having the time to work on other projects. It keeps them from
burning out.

> No, I'm talking about this coming Friday - when it's in repeat against other
> cable shows (like BSG etc. that are still in "new season/new spisode" mode).

What does that matter? If a repeat Monk episode doesn't beat a new
episode of BSG? Nobody (Monk producers, advertisers, USA Network)
really cares. And it proves nothing about the success of the show. You
think that Desperate Housewives producers are concerned that their show
doesn't pull down the same kind of ratings for a repeat as it does for
a first run. They're not. Usually a Monk reruns pull in a couple of
million. So what?

> Yes, so why don't they put some more "oomph" behind it? I like the show
> enough to wish it was even better, otherwise, I wouldn't care.
>
It's the number one scripted show on cable. That's a lot of oomph. If
you are dissatisfied with the show for any reason, that's your problem.
It's certainly not reflected in the ratings.
Also from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-08-30-nielsen-analysis_x.htm
·Season enders - Monk closed its case Friday with 5.3 million
viewers, capping the USA series' most-watched summer season.

"Teresa1643" <teresa1643@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125525270.500240.4400@g49g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...

Steve Latham wrote:
> Well, I'd like to know how network shows compare to cable shows, but just
> in
> general - like how many people watched the number one network show, versus
> how many people watched the number one cable show.

What difference does that make?
Top 20 network shows usually get a
total audience of anywhere from 7 to 20 million. Here are the network
ratings for this week:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/nielsen.htm. That has nothing
to do with Monk or how successful it is.

No, I know. I wasn't trying to compare Networks and Cable, I was asking how
they compare. The reason I was curious was to see if the Number 1 ranked
cable show (Monk in this case) was, say, even in the top ten of TV. I see
that that's lower than the 7 mil from what I assume to be the lowest number
of top 20 broadcast. That's the info I was looking for. Thanks for that.

Networks have a much larger
audience to pull from.

Yes, I was wondering just how saturated the Cable market is. What I'd like
to know is, what percentage of people have broadcast only, and what
percentage have cable (satellite, etc.) and then, how many of the people who
have both are watching network vs. cable.


No cable shows could be called successful if
you compare their numbers to network numbers. That's why there are two
separate ratings reports. It's apples and oranges.

It may be, but I don't think it should be. Or, at least, when we reach a
level of market saturation where 100 percent of TV owning housholds have
cable (and assuming both in that case), then they should be equal. I'm
wondering how close to that 100 percent mark we are (we'll probably never
actually get to that point until they stop price-gouging us :-)

> But Monk seems to have even shorter seasons than other cable shows too -
> that's what I'm griping about.

Shorter than which shows? The Closer? Rescue Me? The Shield? Deadwood?
Kojak? The Dead Zone? BattleStar Galactica? They all have shorter
seasons than Monk. So once again, what is it you're griping about?

Do they? My impression is that Monk is shorter than many, but if they are
shorter, then Monk is where it should be - if it's the number one rated
cable show, then it should probably have the most episodes (for advertising
revenue, etc.).

> But my point still stands - if you're making
> money off the product, it seems like you'd want more of it than less of
> it,
> for more of the period of the fiscal year - unless for some reason the
> production costs are eating away at the profits?????

It's simply the cable industry standard. There's nothing wrong or bad
about the length of Monk's seasons.

Well, they are too short :-) I'd like to see more of them. And you know
what, screw the cable industry "standard" - in fact, get over it, it's
2005 - there really shouldn't be any "seasons" anymore. Cable has already
come through with putting seasons offset from network so they could compete,
and now it seems that cable is making significant inroads with really good
shows (like Monk) now that it's entering more and more households. But,
cable will remain a second class citizen until somebody stops worry about
what status quo is, and tries something beyond that (which they're already
doing, unfortunately sometimes by using graphic language and supposed
nudity - a lead which network shows are starting to follow too).

Besides, I know that all the cast
enjoy having the time to work on other projects. It keeps them from
burning out.

Well, I can certainly understand that. But they also don't shoot all year -
they usually record episodes in a much shorter time frame than the actual
run. I would think that they all might like a contract that has a couple
extra hundred housand in it for a couple more episodes too (unless Men in
Black III really pays a whole heck of a lot more for Tony - I don't know).

> No, I'm talking about this coming Friday - when it's in repeat against
> other
> cable shows (like BSG etc. that are still in "new season/new spisode"
> mode).

What does that matter? If a repeat Monk episode doesn't beat a new
episode of BSG?

If it were a new episode, more viewers would be watching USA instead of
Sci-fi (maybe not, because I TiVo both) which means more advertising revenue
for the station.

>Nobody (Monk producers, advertisers, USA Network)
really cares.

Yes, I know they would rather have people watch another station.

>And it proves nothing about the success of the show.

Well, that is true. It is successful, for cable. I guess what I want to know
is per capita (not sheer numbers). If 75 percent of the people who have
cable watched Monk, and 70 percent of people who had network only watched
its top-rated show, I would conisder Monk more successful. But it's not
"apples and oranges" as you said - that would only be true if people who had
cablehad cable ONLY. Most of them have broadcast as well. So the question of
the distinction between cable and network is becoming less relevant.

>You
think that Desperate Housewives producers are concerned that their show
doesn't pull down the same kind of ratings for a repeat as it does for
a first run. They're not.

You don't think so? Maybe they're not "concerned" because they expect it,
but don't you think if they could eek out a few more dollars by showing a
new episode instead, they wouldn't do it in a heartbeat. It's contracts that
probably prevent them from doing so (and they write the contracts before
they really know how well an episode will do).

Usually a Monk reruns pull in a couple of
million. So what?

So what, if the it's the number 1 rated show on Cable, on Network, or in
Botswana, if they put a new episode on they'd get a lot more viewers. I
think they'd rather pull in 4.5 million instead of 2 million.

> Yes, so why don't they put some more "oomph" behind it? I like the show
> enough to wish it was even better, otherwise, I wouldn't care.
>
It's the number one scripted show on cable. That's a lot of oomph. If
you are dissatisfied with the show for any reason, that's your problem.

True, it's just my opinion.

>It's certainly not reflected in the ratings.

Well, ratings and quality are "apples and oranges".

Also from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-08-30-nielsen-analysis_x.htm
·Season enders - Monk closed its case Friday with 5.3 million
viewers, capping the USA series' most-watched summer season.

I think that's great. I want more people to watch the show. I just simply
wish there were more episodes, and, if it's doing so well, why they don't
start heading in that direction.

So, enough ranting from me.

Steve

As far as market penetration goes, I believe cable is about 75% now.
(Although, it's not necessarily that high for USA Network in
particular.) Cable/Satellite is getting closer to the mark. There's
been a steady increase in cable audiences over the past ten years and a
corresponding decrease in network audiences. When Monk first started
2-3 million were great cable numbers. Now they're only so-so.
Eventually parity will be achieved: we're just not there yet.

>>they usually record episodes in a much shorter time frame than the actual run.

No they don't. Shooting began in late March on the first part of season
four and ended in late June. That's 12 weeks. The episodes were shown
in eight weeks (except for the Christmas one that's being held back
until December.)

I really don't think that Tony Shalhoub et al want to make more than
the 16 episodes they're currently contracted to do, even if it would
mean a few extra hundred thousand dollars in their pockets. Ted Levine
and Jason Gray-Stanford both moved on to film projects as soon as
shooting wrapped. I don't think the writers really even got any time
off. They've been working on scripts for season 4.5 this summer.
Filming resumes in September. Perhaps they could squeeze in 6 extra
episodes a year, but nobody would get their extra projects done and
they'd probably all be tired of it by now.

USA Network would no doubt be delighted to air whatever Monk they can
get (they've rebranded their entire network around the show), but since
they can't have it 52 weeks a year, I'm sure they're happier if their
NBC Universal sister station Sci-Fi can pick up the slack with BSG then
say they would be if TNT picked up the audience. Of course, they'd be
happier still if Kojak had been a success.

Monk is like a fine wine. You can only make so much of it with the
grapes you have on hand. If you try to increase production past that
point the wine won't be as good.

I didn't think you were enjoying the wine much anyway, Steve. Why do
you want another glass?

"Teresa1643" <teresa1643@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125598335.081089.193880@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> As far as market penetration goes, I believe cable is about 75% now.
> (Although, it's not necessarily that high for USA Network in
> particular.) Cable/Satellite is getting closer to the mark. There's
> been a steady increase in cable audiences over the past ten years and a
> corresponding decrease in network audiences. When Monk first started
> 2-3 million were great cable numbers. Now they're only so-so.
> Eventually parity will be achieved: we're just not there yet.

Thanks Teresa - that's exactly what I was looking for. I had forgotten that
not all systems carry all stations though, so that does put a kink in it - I
bet more people would be watching Monk if they actually got USA (or it
wasn't part of a pay package somewhere).

>
>>>they usually record episodes in a much shorter time frame than the actual
>>>run.
>
> No they don't. Shooting began in late March on the first part of season
> four and ended in late June. That's 12 weeks. The episodes were shown
> in eight weeks (except for the Christmas one that's being held back
> until December.)

Amazing. People are taking too long nowadays! Some shows used to shoot as
many as 1 or more a day, shoot for one week, and be done with the season. I
guess production isn't the same these days (and it's not a studio show
either).

>
> I really don't think that Tony Shalhoub et al want to make more than
> the 16 episodes they're currently contracted to do, even if it would
> mean a few extra hundred thousand dollars in their pockets. Ted Levine
> and Jason Gray-Stanford both moved on to film projects as soon as
> shooting wrapped. I don't think the writers really even got any time
> off. They've been working on scripts for season 4.5 this summer.
> Filming resumes in September. Perhaps they could squeeze in 6 extra
> episodes a year, but nobody would get their extra projects done and
> they'd probably all be tired of it by now.

Yes, a double edged sword at best.

>
> USA Network would no doubt be delighted to air whatever Monk they can
> get (they've rebranded their entire network around the show), but since
> they can't have it 52 weeks a year, I'm sure they're happier if their
> NBC Universal sister station Sci-Fi can pick up the slack with BSG then
> say they would be if TNT picked up the audience. Of course, they'd be
> happier still if Kojak had been a success.

Well, that's a better point. But here's a clue TV - re-makes very rarely
work, make-overs, barely, tried and true plots, sometimes, and something
completely original will be a smaching success, or a dismal failure.

>
> Monk is like a fine wine. You can only make so much of it with the
> grapes you have on hand. If you try to increase production past that
> point the wine won't be as good.

Yes, you can run the danger of draining the creative well dry (of course,
that seems to have already happened in many cases).

>
> I didn't think you were enjoying the wine much anyway, Steve. Why do
> you want another glass?

I'm enjoying my whine fine :-)

I might say, it's more like cheese to me instead. It's good when new - aged
cheese or fresh cheese - but neither of them are all that good past their
expiration date. And, I'd like to get a serving of Machengo every once in a
while, instead of alternating doses Kraft American Singles and Velveeta.

Steve