TV Media Insights – TV Ratings & News – Network TV Show Reviews and Daily Ratings

More Success for Relocated General Hospital on ABC - TV Media Insights - TV Ratings & News - Network TV Show Reviews and Daily Ratings

More Success for Relocated General Hospital on ABC

September 20, 2012 by Marc Berman in Highlights with 91 Comments
Fox Leads Wednesday; CBS Solid
CBS Renews Big Brother


The focus in daytime, at present, remains on the new crop of first-run syndicated talkers. But veteran General Hospital on ABC, which successfully moved to 2 p.m. ET on Sept. 10, certainly should not be ignored. Based on the weighted household averages in the 56-metered markets from Nielsen, General Hospital this week (Monday, Sept. 17 through Wednesday, Sept. 19) is averaging a very respectable 2.4 rating/8 share. Comparably, that is up by 14 percent from lead-in The Chew (2.1/ 7) and 9 percent from year-ago time period occupant One Life to Live (2.2/ 7).

Growth for General Hospital is more prevalent among target women 25-54, with a 1.7 rating/11 share this week to-date an increase of 70 percent from lead-in The Chew (1.0/ 6) and 13 percent from One Live to Live in Sept. 2011 (1.5/10). Long live the Quartermaines and the Spencers!

Written by Marc Berman

Marc Berman

Marc Berman is the Editor in Chief for TV Media Insights, the online destination for television and media. Berman has appeared on camera for “Extra,” “Entertainment Tonight,” “Access Hollywood,” “The CBS Evening News,” CNN, and more; and was the author of 2014 desk calendar, “This Day in TV History.”

Fox Leads Wednesday; CBS Solid
CBS Renews Big Brother

  • Debbie Joyce

    A 70% increase over The Chew demonstrates that ABC’s decision to replace soaps with talk shows was a poorly conceived idea. Fans seeking serial drama will watch it regardless of the timeslot, and in turn will tune out the shows that replace those dramas.

  • yankeesrj12

    The lineup of The Chew and General Hospital works well together. Yes, The Chew is not doing as well in the Women demos, it just has a more diverse audience then the soaps do.

    I wouldn’t mess with this lineup.

  • CTwildheart

    Sorry Yankeesrj12…I hope The Spew fades away.
    But I am VERY glad to hear that General Hospital is doing so well. :)

  • http://NONE mikep

    This is great news for GH!!! They have been in the 1.7-1.8 range. this should make them the no. 2 soap above B&B, wonder if the 18-49 demo has raised? I wonder who the new viewers are? Former OLTL Viewers looking for a new soap Or tuning in to see Their OLTL characters or
    maybe former time slot viewers seeing GH And becoming fans? The Chew is a better lead in than GAA/REVOLUTION as the chew is at a respectable 2.1 and the other shows were at a 1.0 or so. Great news for my favorite soap. Thanks for the update, Marc!!

  • Seahawkmom

    Thank you Marc for the update. CTwildheart I agree with you The Spew needs to be gone and put AMC or OLTL in its place and than that would be a good line up!!!

    • Pat

      For the 5700th time, AMC and OLTL are dead. They are NEVER coming back to ABC nor will they ever be revived anywhere else- not next week, not next year, not 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now. Not one cable network or other outlet is even remotely interested in them. What part of that don’t you understand?

      And grow up already with the babyish name calling for the show that replaced AMC. That is so stale, not the least bit clever or funny, and certainly will never bring those soaps back. How would you like it if someone referred the title of one of the soaps with a name used by a 4-year old?

      It would not make one bit of economic sense for anyone. The sets for both soaps were destroyed, so it would take millions up front to rebuild them to start up again. Plus, all of the actors and crew members from both shows have moved on to other gigs. And unlike you, 98-99% of normal viewers who were sad and disappointed at the cancellations understood ABC’s business decision and actually moved on to other programs and on with their lives. I suggest you do the same thing.

      • KathyMarshall

        Since you believe that AMC and OLTL are never coming back why don’t you move on and stop disrespecting Mr. Berman by posting your rants on his articles? There is no guarantee the show’s rights will not be sold to another group, especially when Ms. Dummer stated that ABC will have to make a decision as to what to do with the rights shortly.

  • Anne

    I’m glad GH is doing well in the new timeslot. With so little on tv anymore, the time move has freed up a good portion of my day. I do my running in the morning, watch the noon news on CBS, then the Bold and the Beautiful, followed now by General Hospital, then I turn off the TV and spend more time with the kids when they start getting home from school. Still get up at 5am to watch the One Life to Live reruns on SoapNet, and will until ABC/d pulls them from the air. I’ll continue the household boycott of ABC until they return OLTL to the air. But no more watching programs I don’t like just to fill the spaces between the 3 shows I do like. Thanks ABC.

  • camille

    Thank you Marc for this article. It proves over and over that the viewers know what they like and that is they love their serialized dramas or more affectionately known as Soaps. Congratlulations General Hospital we will be always supporting you

  • moshane58

    differently agree The Spew is just another cooking show you can see on the cooking channel.didn’t the cooking channel phase mario out?He really looks like someone who needs a bath with that greasy looking hair.Doesn’t seem to care to skim his workers tips either.Bad thing he had ot pay it back.Greed don’t pay Mario and why would anyone wanna watch a man who did that to his waiters?I have no respect for him.People need those tips.He didn’t he’s a millionaire.Greedy!!!!!

  • Pat

    Yes, all things considered, this is a step up for GH so far in its new time slot. But the show must sustain these people as regular everyday viewers in the coming weeks and consistently build on these numbers in order to have a real chance to survive past its 50th anniversary. At this point, GH almost certainly cannot afford any more losses, esp in the all-important 18-49 female demo. It cannot have viewers just popping in for special stunts and then leaving, like what’s recently happened with DOOL. Of course, the writing quality (or lack thereof) from RC and FV has a lot to do with this. They must give mainstream people a compelling reason to keep tuning in. I’m sure a ton of extra money was put into promotion and those location shoots in the last couple of weeks. Has the size of the ratings increase for the week justified that larger than normal investment? That’s a very important question that ABC has to answer.

    Over the course of the last year or so, GH has had a handful of weeks where the ratings showed a promising spike, but then crashed shortly afterward. ABC is not going to use 3 days or a week or two of ratings data to make their ultimate decision on GH’s fate. And you have to consider the much higher production costs for a soap opera vs. a talk show. Thus, GH should be held to higher expectations than The Chew. Like it or not, that is a major factor in this situation that cannot be ignored. Stay tuned.

    • Troy Turner


      While you make valid points about GH needing to sustain itself, doesn’t it also suggest that people tuned in around the time change (and the storyline thereof), but are sticking around because they like what they see? What is it going to take for you GH haters to give Team Cartini the respect they deserve–because if it weren’t for them, we’d ALL be mourning GH right now

      • Pat

        Troy, just wondering, Do you actually type your comments with a straight face? If you spoke your points aloud to a room of TV executives, you’d get laughed out of the room so hard into the next county. You’re so full of it as usual. Every sane person reading your comments is not buying your complete B.S. and sees right through it. You just don’t want to face the reality that clearly exists with the fate of GH and DOOL.

        I’m neither pro-soaps nor anti-soaps. I’m merely making points down the middle about this situation. The problem is that anyone who makes an honest point that you don’t want to hear because it conflicts with your false propaganda is labeled a “hater”, which is total B.S. Yeah, the truth hurts, doesn’t it! I suggest you actually get a life before it’s too late.

        And I totally resent anyone who has either tuned out GH, is not in love with the show right now, or is not kissing the fannies of Cartooni being labeled a “hater”, “disloyal”, “not a real soap fan”, etc. That’s total crap, period-case closed.

  • ShannonB

    Thank you, Marc for the update. General Hospital’s ratings have been increasing steadily over the last year, which is why it is still on the air and The Revolution was cancelled. The lackluster performance of The Chew, abysmal performances of The Revolution & GAA coupled with Katie’s less-than-$80,000,000 performance says to me that, except for GH, viewers are decidely unhappy with the line-up on ABC we are presented with. And as far as GH being held to “higher expectations than The Chew,” 24 Emmy nominations ought to do the trick.

    • Pat

      ShannonB, the only reason that GH was spared for now is because The Revolution tanked so badly, which was not in ABC’s plans. I don’t know what numbers you’re looking at, but GH’s numbers have been relatively poor all year given its high production costs. It certainly was not given a reprieve because of its own ratings. If The Revolution had worked, GH would have been axed back in April and already gone off the air. That’s a fact.

      ABC did not have anything readily available to replace The Rev with at the time. Given that it bombed, they realized that they could not risk letting GH go yet. They probably also wanted Katie Couric’s syndicated talk show to get off the ground as controversy-free as possible and give GH the chance to reach its milestone 50th anniversary. (ABC probably realized that dropping GH at 49 years would look strange in future almanacs.)

    • Pat

      ShannonB, GH’s 24 Emmy nominations will have zero effect on ABC’s ultimate decision to keep the show on past its 50th anniversary. If the ratings for the show are no longer there, it does not matter how many Emmy nomations a daytime soap receives. Besides, there are only 4 left. Thus, it stands to reason that with fewer soaps, each one will receive more nominations.

      All you need to know is that Guiding Light won an Emmy in 2009 and ATWT won one 2010. Did those wins convince CBS to keep both shows? I rest my case.

  • slj730

    The drastic 70% increase for General Hospital from its lead-in “The Chew” is proof positive that serial dramas remain in demand during the daytime hours. Again, I’ve said it so many times, who wants to watch this stuff, let alone DVR it if you are not available? The Chew even failed during its little primetime debut.

    Thank you again Marc for providing this information. Happy to see the ratings proving the point for those of us that value this genre.

  • tinafg

    Thanks for the great news about my GH, Marc! And thanks for your support!

    • iluvssw

      Thank you for keeping us posted on the ratings. I look forward to reading your articles. Great news for GH and all of the fans. Just proves we ARE watching! These other replacement shows will NEVER replace our soaps.

  • Pingback: General Hospital Scores Solid Ratings in New Timeslot! Women 25-54 Demo Up 70% From Lead-in The Chew! | Michael Fairman On-Air On-Soaps | Daytime Soap Interviews, News, Updates and Previews, Video and Audio Interviews()

  • Troy Turner


    Thanks for the increasingly positive news on GH. 13 percent above OLTL, and 70 percent above The Chew. While we are still campaigning for OLTL to return (despite what an above poster would like us to do), the performance of GH, as you say can’t be ignored. All this proves is that daytime drama will still be watched, if you give viewers the choice.

  • Richard_G

    Quote from Soap Opera Network who has seen the actual ratings for last week:

    “Marc Berman needs to stop posting the 56-metered markets ratings. Why? Because they don’t matter and they don’t foreshadow the weekly ratings at all – that hoopla about GH’s 56-metered markets ratings was all for nothing. ”

    I worried about this last week that fans were going to get their hopes up and then get a big let down.

    I had a feeling since ABC had not said anything and Frank Valentini or Ron Carlavati hadn’t Tweeted how great the ratings were that the ratings were not as great or didn’t hold up to the 56 weighted metered markets.

    Soap Opera Network will post the actual ratings soon and we will see how much the ratings were off from the 56 metered market overnight ratings.

    The best part of it I guess is that Katie’s ratings were probably off too.

    • marcberman

      Metered market ratings are a precursor to the nationals and they do matter. Your constant negative remarks are wearing very thin.

      • Richard_G

        Some precursor — a 2.5 becomes a 1.8 — even The Talk beat GH on Monday by quite a bit and was close to beating them for the week.

        Maybe instead of being so positive toward soaps all the time — which always wears thin too — maybe you should educate your followers here on what the overnight metered market ratings actually mean.

        Because many of them did not say they were a precursor. They shared on multiple boards that they were the actual ratings and are now telling other sites that have posted the true national ratings that they are liars.

        Don’t you think that soap fans have been lied to enough already. They don’t need to be lied to or misled by folks they look to as leaders too.

        You might have known these were just a precursor and that the final national ratings could be down, but you did not stress that and use to educate your readers. Even when questioned on it, you continued to do all you could to make folks believe those were the final ratings. When you could have educated and then some folks would not have been so disappointed and let down when they saw the final ratings.

    • Ronnie

      I think that “Marc Berman needs to stop…” quote is from a poster at SoapZone, not Soap Opera Network.

  • jay

    Given that the “final national ratings” for the soaps are out, I guess the “metered market ratings” are not a “precursor” to the nationals, as GH’s 2.5 magically turned into a 1.8 rating.

    Maybe people wouldn’t be so “negative” toward Marc if he actually gave a full and accurate account of the ratings instead of blowing smoke up the rear end of soap fans.

  • Pat


    Richard and Jay above are merely making honest points about GH’s situation. They are not “negative remarks” nor are they “wearing very thin”. It seems clear to me that you’re another person who can’t handle the truth.

    How about actually doing some homework and giving a complete and accurate report about GH’s overall ratings/profitability without any bias? I don’t think it’s too much to ask for to have some down-the-middle analysis on this. We can all very clearly see that you’re a shameless shill for the soaps/soap fans and trying to spin every little piece of data in GH’s favor. Maybe you should get a job with Soap Opera Digest.

  • marcberman

    Nope…the truth is fine. Any kind of feedback is appreciated. But I do not like…and will not tolerate…people who come here with a planned agenda to attack.

  • jay

    You can’t have it both ways, Marc. From one side of your mouth you scold people that “negative remarks are wearing thin” and from the other side of your mouth you proclaim “the truth is fine” and “any kind of feedback is appreciated”.

    For someone who wants to tell “the truth”, you do a lot of attacking yourself, Marc. I guess you cannot “tolerate” people who come to this site with a “planned agenda to attack”, yet you run this site with a “planned agenda” to only push the “good news” of the soaps. What is the difference? What you are doing is worse, Marc. Giving people false hope when all you could have done is add a line or two to your posts saying that “metered market ratings are not always identical to final ratings and can change, either positive or negative”. Yet you continued to insist that GH did indeed get a 2.5 rating on Monday, Sept. 10. Now that Nielsen has confirmed that was not the case, you still refuse to accept any responsibility. Real classy, Mr. Berman!

    • marcberman

      I report it as I see it. And when a show builds from both the lead-in and year-ago time period, that is positive. The Chew, The Revolution and Good Afternoon America, by the way, all fell flat from the former soaps.

      • jay

        You keep dodging the central complaint, Marc. No one is talking about “The Chew” or any of the other soap replacements.

        You reported that GH had a 2.5 rating on Monday, Sept. 10 according to the Metered Market ratings. That is correct, I am not arguing that point. You allowed people to believe that that 2.5 rating was for GH, when you had no one of knowing that. That is my complaint.

        It is funny how you refuse to acknowledge that fact, only to bring up points that no one is arguing (i.e. ABC’s soap replacements do not do better than the soaps they replaced). Do you just not get that, or is there a reason why you keep dodging the question?

        By the way, thanks for deleting my post in your forums. It lets me know what kind of a forum you are really running. Unless people sing your praises, their posts are deleted. So much for “any kind of feedback is appreciated”. I guess “any kind” is defined as “supportive of Marc Berman”. Funny…you didn’t use to have such a thin skin.

        • Richard_G

          He has deleted several of my posts too Jay. They were ones where I had a different opinion than him. So much for any kind of feedback is appreciative.

          I guess this site operates on censorship. Either tow the line and agree with what I say or I’ll delete your posts.

          • marcberman

            I deleted a few of your comments that were just plain out of line. You are entitled to your opinion and do not have to agree with me, but the way you handle yourself is not always appropriate. If you do not like what I am writing, please do not come back.

        • marcberman

          Yes, I did report that GH had a 2.5 in the overnights because it had a 2.5 in the OVERNIGHTS. And it built from the lead-in and year-ago time period. Is that too hard for you to understand?

          • jay

            No, Marc…you are wrong and just don’t want to admit it. The lead-in for “Katie” got that 2.5 rating. The only way that 2.5 applied to GH is if GH is the exclusive lead-in for “Katie”. Is that too hard for YOU to understand?

            More double speak from Mr. Berman. He claims to appreciate both positive and negative feedback, yet his actions (i.e. deleting posts) don’t back up that lip service.

          • marcberman

            Based on the weighted household averages in the metered markets for Mon. 9/17 through Wed. 9/19, GH averaged a 2.4/ 8 out of a 2.1/ 7 for The Chew. One Life to Live in Sept. 2011 was a 2.2/ 7. When you build from both benchmarks, that is POSITIVE.

  • fanoftv

    This is always my first destination for anything TV related and I greatly appreciate your efforts, Marc. I have seen the comments over the last week from these soap haters. These people are only trying to get attention. I would just ignore them. You report it as it is and I appreciate. We all do.

  • fanoftv

    Ignore these creeps, Marc. Let them go somewhere else if they do not like what you report.

  • jay

    Marc, I am not talking about Sept. 17-19. I am talking about you telling people that GH got a 2.5 rating on Monday, Sept. 10 when the program getting a 2.5 rating was the lead-in to “Katie”. That lead-in may or may not have been GH. You keep talking about everything except the issue I have raised. I guess the fact that you continually refuse to address that complaint speaks volumes.

  • SonOfTheBronx

    What exactly is the problem here? Do you actually think Marc is here to just tout GH or any soap to appease the most people? Whether it’s a 1.8 or a 2.5, GH still remains a positive from the dreck called The Revolution. And if the issue is that Marc misrepresented numbers, that’s not the case. He can only work with what Nielsen provides him directly. He gets metered market data, which (shocker) might be different than final data. But he always makes that distinction.

    The big difference between this site and other TV ratings sites is Marc’s analytical touch. He allows for others’ opinions on this site MUCH more than other TV sites. It’s okay if you don’t like his views. I’ve continually disagreed with him about Stern’s influence on AGT this summer.

    The fact some of you are still posting on this forum is evidence enough that Marc is willing to put up with almost all commentary. When the negativity gets too vicious, though, it’s a turnoff for readers and posters alike, so thus, it’s Marc’s discretion to remove it.

    Marc has provided ratings for soaps, even those for the increasingly-defunct SOAPnet, every single week since last September. Now that there are those here who are growingly unappreciative of it, maybe he won’t post this stuff as frequently. Or, not at all. What a shame if it comes to that because I actually think that had it not been for Marc’s reporting, ABC might’ve gotten rid of its entire daytime drama lineup altogether.

    Calm down and recognize what Marc’s doing for all of us. You’re taking him for granted.

  • jay

    You need to get your facts straight as well, Son of the Bronx.

    Marc did indeed misrepresent metered market ratings by passing of numbers that were described as a lead-in for “Katie” as ratings for GH. And please show me where Marc makes a distinction that metered market data which (shocker) might be different than final data. While he does make a distinction between the various forms of ratings, he most certainly does not mention that the final ratings can change. Not everyone knows as much about ratings as you claim to do, Son of the Bronx, so it should not be taken for granted that people understand the way that Nielsen works.

    If you think that ABC is going to keep GH because of Marc’s reporting or that he in any way will keep ABC from doing away with its daytime line-up, you are most stupid than I thought you were to begin with.

  • SonOfTheBronx

    For as long as you’ve followed ratings, jay, you should already know final national data USUALLY varies from metered market numbers.

    If Marc sees a show succeeding or just plain sucking in the ratings, he will state it. Simple as that. When hasn’t he done that?

    It’s not really that big of a deal about the “lead-in” numbers to “Katie”. If the final ratings describe it differently than his original numbers, you could kindly inform him and he’d accept it. But no need for berating. And considering the actual final number, it is still a positive, as Marc stated from the get-go.

    Where else did you see a TV ratings website following AND analyzing daytime numbers AS CLOSELY AS Marc has the past 12 months? This site is not just some niche hideaway. It’s seen by just about everyone in the industry, and believe me, those in the know ARE reading.

    Finally, jay, what’s up? First, the BB stuff, now this?!? Your attempts at condescension are getting to be tiresome. I’m not going to delve into an insult contest with you here. We’re all free to disagree with certain views but when it ventures into name-calling, it gets to be ridiculous, and further lessens the validity of the point you’re actually trying to make.

    • jay

      I may know the difference between metered market ratings and final national ratings, but that doesn’t mean that everyone does. In fact, there are people who have seen Marc’s news about GH’s performance last week and have claimed that the final national ratings are wrong because of the information that Marc provided. I have told Marc that he was wrong about the GH numbers (because the numbers were not for GH but for the lead-in to “Katie”…big difference), yet he has declined to address that issue.

      You are free to take offense with my “stupid” comment, but if you think that any executive at ABC decided not to cancel GH because of Marc’s reporting, that is the only word I can come up with to describe that opinion. I also think you need to look up the meaning of the word “condescension”. In the future, if you don’t like my posts, I suggest you refrain from responding or commenting on them.

  • marcberman

    Thank you, SonOfTheBronx. We certainly do not all have to agree here…I welcome debates. It keeps the forum alive and well. But the fact that Jay referred to you as “stupid” only verifies what a petty and unprofessional person this is. I will NOT tolerate name calling here and he will be banned if it happens again.

    And, to verify, I have stated that General Hospital leads into Katie in most markets, not all. As for keeping General Hospital on the air, I credit the loyal fans who have made their feelings loud and clear. Had it not been for them, I do believe it would have been canceled.

    • Pat


      I respect your opinion, but I truly don’t think that GH was spared back in April primarily because ABC was bombarded with fan outcries. It certainly might have been a minimal factor. But I think the #1 reason is almost certainly because The Revolution tanked so badly and ABC did not have anything else ready in the pipeline to replace it with permanently. That caught ABC completely off-guard and it would have been too much of a risk at that point in time for them to let GH go.

      Yes, GH still has a devoted fan base, but the reality is that it’s considerably smaller than it once was. If not enough of those fans (esp younger ones) are watching the show anymore and seeing the ads, it does no good. We saw that with AMC and OLTL. It’s a loud, vocal cult group/minority contacting ABC. Remember, if The Revolution had worked, ABC was prepared to cancel GH this past April and it would already be off the air. If/when ABC decides to cancel GH, there undoubtedly will be a segment of angry hard-core fans. But I think that there will be a silent majority (some of whom are still watching the show) that will be sad/disappointed to see it go, but will quickly move on and understand that it was time. IMO, a lot of GH’s current viewers now are probably in enjoy-it-while-you-can mode and know that its days are probably numbered. I personally fall into the latter category. We’ll see what happens.

      I think that ABC felt they needed to do everything possible to let Katie’s syndicated talk show get off the ground with as little controversy as possible, given how much ABC/Disney has invested on her. Given that The Revolution failed, they certainly did not want her to be painted as the “villain” who pushed GH out and risk any wrath over that. In addition, I think they felt obligated to give GH an opportunity to mark its milestone 50th anniversary next April and try to squeeze at least one last load out of it. After all, it would look odd in future almanacs and on Wikipedia if ABC had pulled the plug at 49 years.

  • SonOfTheBronx

    jay, why then do you blame Marc for what other people are doing, referring to them as final ratings? That’s their fault, not Marc’s.

    It’s not the “stupid” comment I take offense as much as your overall unnecessary overly negative attitude. You have credible thoughts to share but you have got to lighten up. I’m not bashing you as a person if I happen to debate you, for example, on all that Big Brother stuff we’ve been discussing. We’re all big TV fans. You’re certainly a passionate one. Please don’t get yourself thrown off.

    • jay

      All of this back and forth has distracted from my original complaint, so here it is…

      In regards to the overnight, metered market ratings, for GH on Monday, September 10, Marc used information that said the lead-in to “Katie” got a 2.5 rating and assigned that number to GH. Nowhere in his news about the ratings did Marc ever mention that…at least in the reports I have seen. Marc should not be held accountable for what other people do in regards to reposting his numbers, but he could have done a better job letting fans know (and, ironically enough, I am not even a fan of GH) that these ratings are not final – merely preliminary – and that they do not mean that GH got the numbers he posted.

      As far as getting banned, if someone can be banned due to using the word “stupid”, then a whole lot more people should be following me out the door, as that is a pretty low bar to set. I do find it ironic that Marc “not tolerate” name calling yet proceeds to call me names (i.e. petty, unprofessional). Will Marc ban himself? Personally, I have lost respect for Marc as a result of his behavior dealing with the soap ratings and actually, I don’t necessarily value his vaunted analysis (one reason why I delete his newsletter from my e-mail inbox and don’t bother to listen to his podcasts). I visit the forums more to see what other people are saying and to interact with them, not Marc. If that opinion gets be banned…so be it. However, that will simply reinforce my opinion that Marc does not really value debate and will ban people to drive home to point that such talk is just lip service.

  • Richard_G

    South of the Bronx, According to Jamey Giddens at Daytime Confidential, Marc Berman did tell him that the ratings of the 2.5 on Monday were for General Hospital alone. He was asked point blank and he said he talked to Marc Berman and Marc told him the 2.5 was for General Hospital.

    I asked Mr. Berman in the original thread for Katie if the numbers were for GH. He said they were for any show that led into Katie.

    But then he posted the article for the average, and used those overnight numbers. Again he only stated they were the metered markets but never used the thread to educate folks who do not know the difference. And yes some of us know, but not all.

    I tried to ask questions of Mr. Berman to get him to educate but he never answered those questions. I knew if I posted what I knew no one would believe. But I thought I would give Mr. Berman the chance to educate his readers, but he was more interested in misleading people with the numbers.

    Whether they were only the overnights or not doesn’t matter to me. Many soap fans are willing to believe anything and willing to latch on to anything.

    To me on most things Mr. Berman is usually accurate, fair and very reputable. When it comes to soap operas and the ABC replacement shows he loses all objectivity. And that hurts his reputation. If he can be that unobjective, I personally don’t trust anything he reports anymore. Who knows what else he loses his objectivity on. He constantly takes digs at Katie, but doesn’t even act he realizes that Katie didn’t even replace GH in many markets. In my market GH was replaced by The Steve Harvey Show, but yet he constantly praises it. Katie is on my NBC affiliate airing 2 hours after Days of Our Lives.

    One of the posts he deleted of mine, was merely asking him why Steve Harvey was the standout when Katie had higher numbers. And I asked if was based on the percentage of gain from the lead-in and what was in the year ago timeslot — I asked him what it replaced. And pointed out that if Steve Harvey followed a show that was less than stellar, then it wouldn’t take much to achieve double digit percentage gains. Compare that to Katie which has GH as a lead-in and is compared to what GH got last year. Katie is doing similar to those ratings so of course the percentage gains are not going to be double digits.

    For instance any show that airs in an old timeslot that aired The Revolution, then it is going to stand a good chance even with mediocre ratings to get double digit percentage gains.

    If The Steve Harvey show was compared to GH last year and with GH as a lead-in, then it is not going to get those double digit percentages. I know that in Florida (I think it is them), Steve Harvey also follows GH and took its place — just like here.

    But that comment was deleted. So I made a sarcastic comment saying how STeve Harvey aired here and glad to know it was doing so much better than GH. But again it was deleted.

    • marcberman

      I tried to explain to you that Steve Harvey is more of a standout because of the solid growth from the lead-in and year-ago time period averages. Those are the benchmarks that determine success, or lack of it, in the OVERNIGHTS. I understand the expectations are higher for Katie, but Steve deserves the accolades at present. And I have very fair to Katie to the point where people are complaining I have been too nice. Jeff Probst and Ricki are the clinkers, not Katie. Boy…you cannot please anyone.

      As I always say, I have no problem debating the numbers or anything else. But if Jay and yourself are so unhappy with my reporting, why are you constantly here? My guess is you will attack me no matter what I say…I have traveled this road many times in the past. So, please, do us all a favor and do not come back here.

      • jay

        So much for appreciating “any kind of feedback”, Marc, telling people who don’t agree with you not to “come back”. You may always say that you have “no problem debating the numbers”, but your other words and actions tell a different story.

        I’m not going to speak for Richard, but I don’t come here for your reporting…I can get the same ratings from numerous other sources. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, I visit to see what other (regular) people have to say about it. In fact, I think this “news” story is the first time that I have posted a comment outside of the forums.

        • marcberman

          Disagreeing is absolutely fine. It is the way you responded that was both unnecessary and juvenile. That said, I wish you well elsewhere. We do not need…or want…this kind of feedback here.

          • jay

            Yeah, okay. Whatever. More double speak. I guess both encouraging and simultaneously discouraging comments makes sense in your world.

            The same world were GH will probably do this past week as it did the week before, despite the misleading headline. When the final ratings come out, we’ll see if GH is still doing better than OLTL (which had 2.67 million viewers one year ago). GH will have to gain 140,000 viewers from its previous week in order to do that.

  • fanoftv

    OMG…Marc please ignore these people. I would call them morons but you did say you do not like calling anyone names. Oops…I just did. Seriously, stop all this nonsense Richard and Jay and get a life! Marc keeps us educated and updated. You are two bullies who need to stand in the corner.

  • susanmz

    Wow! Thanks, Marc for your newest update.

    It looks like some Chew trolls have descended upon us.

    Here’s some reality: Many, many soap fans have boycotted ABC, and ABC ratings, even in the primetime are dead last about 80% of the time. The Chew continues to lose viewers. People are already bored with Katie.
    The talk show format is overdone. Stick a fork in it.

    Soap opera viewers aren’t going to move on to other programs. They’ll just find something else to do.

    • Pat

      If the talk show format is “overdone”, then why do the overall ratings in daytime (networks and syndication) keep proving the exact opposite? I don’t see “a fork being stuck in it” any time soon. There must be some disconnect here between what soap fans watch and what the sizable majority of daytime viewers watch.

      Like it or not, The Chew and The Talk have each cultivated an audience that enjoys them, and The View continues to be ultra-successful. How do you explain the solid start for the rechristened Live! with Kelly and Michael? Or the decent sampling for Steve Harvey and Katie? FYI- Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Ellen, and Rachael Ray were all up last season from the previous season. Maury Povich continues to draw 3.0-3.5 million daily, and Judge Judy still garners 6.0’s and 8 million viewers.

      • marcberman

        I don’t think the talk format is overdone. But I do think you need to bring something fresh to the table in order to succeed, which is why The Revolution came and quickly went.

      • jay

        I agree. (I wonder who these phantom “Chew” trolls are, since Marc is the only person talking about that particular show.)

        There is only so much in television that is new. What exactly can be done to a talk show to make it something that hasn’t been seen before. All of these daytime talkers are essentially the same. A guest comes to talk…and that is pretty much it. Whether it is a celebrity on “The View” or “Ellen” or a woman upset that her man got her best friend pregnant on “Jerry Springer”. Even the courtroom shows are all basically the same. All of these shows thrive or fail largely on the appeal of their host(s). Personally, I don’t watch a single talk show on a regular basis, but they have an audience that they appeal to – and many of them are not only surviving, but thriving.

        As far as ABC’s primetime ratings are concerned, lets wait until the bulk of the fall season is in place next week before he determine if soap boycotters are hurting the network.

        • jay

          To clarify, I was agreeing with the comment made by “Pat”, not the one from Marc.

        • Troy Turner


          Then would you care to explain how ABC fell from 3rd to 4th place last year in primetime ratings if soap boycotters didn’t have an effect on the ratings? We may be a small minority here online, but I guarantee we represent millions of the voiceless, and they know what ABC has done as well…

          • Pat

            Troy, you really have a tremendous gift. I don’t think there’s anyone anywhere on this planet more skillful than you in wasting precious time in your life typing complete and utter nonsense/garbage on message boards and being totally oblivious to it. You don’t realize how hilarious you really are. You greatly overvalue yourself and others. If you made your comments aloud in front of a group of programming executives, they’d laugh you straight into the next county and ask you what exactly you’re smoking.

            If ABC’s primetime ratings fell as you say, then prove that the primary reason was sour daytime soap fans boycotting en masse. If you’re going to make a bold statement like that here, prove it and bring tangible evidence here to this forum that there was a direct link. I don’t think there’s any way you can. That’s just a wishful thinking conspiracy theory on your part.

          • marcberman

            Pat, point taken but why do you have to be so angry and bitter over this?

          • jay


            The reason why ABC fell to 4th place (in the Adult 18-49 demographic) probably has more to do with a little sporting event called the Super Bowl than it does a soap fan boycott.

            According to 2011-12 season numbers at the TVBytheNumbers website, ABC had a 2.4 rating in the 18-49 demographic (down a mere 1% from 2010-11), while NBC had a 2.5 rating (up 7% from 2010-11). NBC just happened to air Super Bowl XLVI in February 2012. As far as the other networks go, Fox finished first (down 9%) followed by CBS (up 3%) in second.

            In terms of actual viewers (which do not matter as much as the A18-49 ratings), ABC continued in third place behind CBS and Fox, and ahead of NBC.

            If the soap fan boycott was successful last season, it only accounted for a statistically insignificant 1% drop in the ratings.

  • SpinsVixenella

    I am appalled at the ridiculous attacks on Marc Berman, who is the messenger here. Marc’s integrity in reporting the ratings is unimpeachable. I have seen the same overnight metered market ratings reported in many other publications over the past 2 weeks, most notably in Variety & The Hollywood Reporter. Soap fans are smart enough to understand these overnights tend to trend downward once all the information is gathered, and we don’t need Soap Opera Network to filter our ratings information for us, telling us what we can & cannot see. SON reports the final set of Live + Same Day numbers, but those of us who can READ knew that is not what Marc was providing. In addition, in the same way the soap #s were adjusted downward when all the markets were taken into account, my guess is Katie’s numbers also adjusted downward; we just haven’t seen that posted anywhere yet to my knowlege. What Marc has provided is an insightful analysis of the trends based on accurate overnight information. The overnights are invaluable and used every day by the networks in their decision-making. I cannot thank Marc enough for making the ratings information more readily available and the entire process more transparent. And to whomever above is harping on the cost of the advertisement for GH versus the number of additional people it brought it, I would say this: whatever amount ABC spent on advertising GH was money well-spent compared to the $80 MILLION Dollar cost of launching Katie’s show. GH costs about $50 Million Dollars per year to produce, as did All My Children. One Life to Live cost approximately $40 Million to produce annually. For those who think talk shows are so much less expensive than soaps, do the math. Jeff Probst show cost nearly $35 Million to produce. I have never seen it published, but I have reason to believe The Chew costs in the $40 Million per year neighborhood to produce. The $80 Million price tag for Katie once and for all blew out of the water any argument ABC ever made that “talk” was cheaper to produce than soaps, and I can guarantee the affiliates & others who are paying the exorbitant syndication cost for Katie wish they had One Life to Live or All My Chidren on the air in her place right about now.

    • marcberman

      Much appreciated…thank you.

    • Barbara

      Thanks Marc for your efforts. I have no idea what some of these folks are talking about with the ratings. I’m just thankful you take the time to post. I love my soaps. I have watched GH since the 60’s. I also watched One Life to Live since the early 70’s. I really miss that that show. I watched AMC on occasion, but still support trying to get the show back on the air as I know there are a many fans that one it back.

      Spin and other soap posters. Thank you for your comments!

  • krism

    Thanks, Spins, for allowing us to finally read a sensible post. Marc has been keeping us informed and I, for one, am grateful to him. People are entitled to their opinions but I find it very rude to “attack the messenger” and anyone else who dares to disagree.

  • Rob

    Marc, while I agree with you that the name-calling from Jay towards SonoftheBronx was unacceptable and uncalled for, you can’t deny that you are very biased against ABC, at least when it comes to daytime ratings. You’re displaying an agenda that is clearly anti–ABC and pro-CBS.

    You constantly put down The Chew while at the same time hypocritically praising The Talk. The fact of the matter is that The Chew and The Talk have similar ratings. In fact, The Chew often beats The Talk and you know it. Both The Chew and The Talk are soap replacements. The only difference between The Chew and The Talk is that one is on ABC and the other is on CBS.

    On syndication, you’re showing that same anti-ABC propaganda, trying to spin every little things in favor of Steve Harvey and against Katie everytime the opportunity presents itself when any sane person can tell that Katie has a better chance of succeeding long term than Harvey. It doesn’t matter that Katie is down from the previous years time slot occupant and Harvey isn’t. What matters the most to networks is the actual raw numbers the shows are pulling. Comparisons to lead-ins or previous year occupants is secondary concern to networks.

    Marc, I know you want to please everybody. But remember that these anti-ABC soap fans don’t represent everybody. In fact they are a very tiny minority. The vast majority of the readers and users on your website are not pro-soaps or anti-ABC. While you’re entitle to your opinion Marc, the silent majority would appreciate that you show a little bit of more objectivity in your daytime reports instead of always catering this minority of ill-mannered anti-ABC soap fans.

    • marcberman

      I do not agree, particularly about Katie. Read what I wrote when it premiered and you will have a different perspective. She got off to a very respectable start, which is exactly what I said, but has lost steam.

    • Troy Turner


      You are so disingenuous that it’s laughable. You just want us to go away and/or know our place-but we are NOT about to back down. I grant you that we are a vocal minority here online-but we do represent the millions of soap fans that are voiceless or that Neilsen refuses to reach (another discussion for another day) And we are not ill-mannered, we are demanding the respect that other fans of other TV shows/genres get when they are threatened. What you and other regular consumers of Marc’s site have now discovered is that we soapers are a passionate fan base, and will back anyone that respects our right to exsist, unlike the majority of the TV-watching universe, who hold the same opinion as you do. Marc is only reporting the numbers-which have been verified by other posters and outlets-and interpreting them as he sees fit. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your (and other posters) anti-soap agenda-but we are here and will continue to voice our opinions on these matters.

      • Rob

        Troy, you constantly put down a show (The Chew) that did not cancelled your stupid soap operas. And by putting down The Chew, you are also putting down its fans that had nothing to do with the cancellation of your stupid soap operas. And you expect normal people to respect you soap fans? Dream on.

        And you do not represent millions of soap fans. You are only representing a tiny minority of immature soap fans who cannot seem to get out of their diapers and accept the fact that TV shows get cancelled all the time. ABC is laughing so hard at you guys.

        • Troy Turner


          Please prove to me ONE time I have EVER put down The Chew as a show. My argument with The Chew has ALWAYS been it’s ratings in relation to AMC, and you know it. And by the way, we DO represent millions of soap fans-you-and people like you are too narrow-minded to realize it…

          • Rob

            So let me see if I get this correctly Troy. Repeating weeks after weeks that you’re going to “take down The Chew” is not considered putting it down?????????????

          • Pat


            Whether you like it or not, The Chew does not need to equal or surpass AMC’s end ratings for it to be considered successful and profitable for ABC. In fact, ABC was never expecting The Chew to do that from the beginning last fall. Since a talk show is 40-50% cheaper to produce than a soap opera it has much more leeway to be a money maker. Plus, unlike soaps, episodes can be repeated.

            You can cry, moan, and whine about that all you want. But that’s the REALITY of how networks do business in the daytime these days, and it’s NOT changing anytime soon. So get used to it. If you don’t like it- tough.

      • Pat

        Troy, no matter what you type, there are NOT “millions of soap fans” left. This is not 1980 anymore. And even if there are, the vast, vast silent majority of them have actually accepted the cancellations and the current state of the genre, and/or are watching GH/Days strictly in enjoy-it-while-you-can mode.

        Believe it or not, those people have moved on with their lives and moved on to other programs, including ones on local ABC affiliates, the ABC network, any of the ESPN channels, Disney Channel, and Lifetime.

        It’s only an extremely tiny minority of sour online soap fans like yourself who need their diapers changed.

        • Troy Turner


          If you are going to hold soap fans to the standard of the day that an estimated 30 million people watched the wedding of Luke and Laura on GH, then I partially agree with you-soaps may never approach those numbers again-if for no other reason that there are more TV choices now. But, you CANNOT tell me with a straight face that there aren’t more soap fans out there. Until Neilsen makes MAJOR changes in the way ALL shows are tabulated, ANY numbers are estimates, sadly

          • Pat


            Yes, I’m going to tell you with a straight face that there are NOT “millions of soap fans” left, certainly not “millions” that refuse to move on with their lives like you. You’re not fooling any right-headed readers here one iota with your LOL-laughable nonsense on this board or anywhere else. We’re all on to you.

            We can clearly see that you only choose to believe and latch onto data that you think fits with your 100% false agenda. You’re just so stubborn that you can’t handle the cold-hard truth about this situation. Is this how you operate in other areas of your life-by totally ignoring the clear-as-day reality?

            Everyone in a position of authority at ABC/Disney, CBS, NBC, etc. as well as every sane person/viewer in this nation is howling in laughter in your face and poking fun at you for what a colossal fool you really are.

            I’m guessing that you like lollipops because if you look up the word “sucker” in the dictionary, your picture should be right next to it.

  • Troy Turner


    Nice try-but we soapers know the real reason that ABC fell into 4th place. While there is no disputing the effect that airing Super Bowls have on any network involved, ABC’s ratings have been in the tank since 4/14/11. Are you going to try to blame The Revolution and GAA’s ratings on the Super Bowl as well??

    • Rob

      As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking. The ratings of the ABC network as a whole have been in decline since the late 2000s. If it wasn’t for this decline, AMC and OLTL would probably have never been cancelled.

    • Pat


      Rob is 110% correct with his comments here- case closed/end of story. You are so clueless, it’s downright pathetic and sad. No matter what garbage you type, you DO NOT represent “millions of soap fans”. What utter nonsense! LOL. Get real, pal. You only represent an ultra-miniscule minority of crybabies who refuse to face reality and accept that AMC and OLTL were no longer getting the ratings and ad revenue to justify the high costs to keep them on the air. And they are NOT coming back anywhere. Unlike you, 99.9% of normal people have a life and have actually moved on with theirs, with regard to these two shows. Imagine that. Is there some reason why you can’t? Not one sane person anywhere is buying one word you type and everyone is howling in laughter in your face. You are NEVER going to win, so have fun pushing that heavy boulder up the giant mountain.

      And BTW, The Revolution failed simply because it was a poorly planned/executed show with a concept that nobody was interested in. It happens more than you think with talk shows. Plus, GAA aired over the summer when HUT levels in the afternoon are typically lower and most people knew it was just a placeholder for ABC. Plus, the Olympics aired opposite it for two weeks in late July/early August on NBC and its cable partners. There is zero so-called “boycott” by bitter soap fans because the other 3 replacement shows on CBS and ABC have all established themselves in the last few years. If you can’t accept that, then you’re the one with the problem- pal.

      • Troy Turner


        We DO represent millions of soap fans-it’s posters like yourself that are too narrow-minded to realize that. And we HAVE boycotted, and will continue to take down ANYTHING ABC throws at us until AMC and OLTL are back into production-simple as that. The Revolution may very well have been the worst show in the history of television, but soap fans also boycotted it out of principle-so you can’t have it both ways. Believe it or not, I-and other soapers-have lives outside of commenting on forums like these-we are just VERY passionate about what we believe ABC has done to us for the last year and a half- lied, manipulated, and generally spat on an audience that was there for them as they were struggling to survive as a network. THAT’S where our anger comes from-not the fact that show cancellations happen. But, rest assured we will not back down, nor go away-regardless of what you and others with your anti-soap agenda would like us to do…

        • Pat


          Just curious, what planet do you live on? I live on Earth in the real world, unlike you it seems.

          If you want to know what a fool looks like, I suggest you look in the mirror. You’ll see ABC/Disney executives and all the sane people in this country in the background howling in laughter right in your face.

        • Pat


          It seems that you desperately need a diaper change. You are so colossally dead wrong. Whether you admit it or not, you and these other “soapers” who are so up in arms about ABC’s decision make up less than 1% of all soap fans and even less than that of the general population. You are nothing more than a loud, obnoxious, microscopic, pea-sized MINORITY. You’re going to need a million times more ammunition than that to “take down” anything on ABC, LOL. Good luck, pal. That’ll happen when pigs fly which is also when AMC and OLTL will return.

          All you and these other stuck-up “soapers” (LOL) continue to prove is how hopelessly clueless and out of touch you are with how the television business works and what younger generations these days are interested in watching.

          • marcberman

            A “diaper change”??? You might be the one in need of a pacifier, Pat. Let’s try to keep this professional please.

    • jay


      I know it is useless to have a debate because from a distance when you argue with a fool other people can’t tell the difference. Lest Marc or anyone become insulted, that is an old saying…not a personal insult.

      I didn’t know you wanted to talk about the ratings for “The Revolution” or GAA, as you seemed to talk about the network as a whole. As I mentioned, with facts and figures to back up my point, NBC beat ABC by 0.1 in the 18-49 demographic. Surely the millions of people who watched the Super Bowl could combine to cover that 0.1 margin of victory.

      I’m sorry, but the only thing you “soapers” are doing is looking like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who refuse to accept the truth. The truth is that ABC canceled two soaps and is making more money than before. Such clarity would require “soapers” to actually admit that they are not in a “silent majority” but rather a very “loud minority”.

      That is another reason that Marc fails terribly at “analyzing” daytime ratings. He is trying to apply the standards of primetime to daytime. CBS, according to their CEO Les Moonves, went from a losing millions of dollars in daytime to earning millions of dollars by canceling two soaps of their own. CBS is making money despite the fact that “The Talk” gets lower ratings than its soap predecessor. So, by using Marc’s arcane reasoning “The Talk” should be a “loser”, but I’ll bet that CBS would rather have that money making “loser” on their schedule than “As the World Turns”.

      • Troy Turner

        Oh, please-Les Moonves is just trying to justify his decisions to cancel ATWT and GL. We soapers know the truth-no soap replacement will EVER make the money that a soap did-end of story

        Marc is giving us the same numbers that everyone else has-that has been proven by other posters here. If you don’t like it, you are free to leave at any point. But, don’t use your so-called “disagreement” as an excuse to chase soapers all over the Internet in order to push an anti-soap agenda to try to force us to submit. We WILL NOT go away…

        • jay

          See, this is why no one can carry on an intelligent conversation with “soapers”…they continue to argue points that no one is arguing (i.e. “Marc is giving us the same numbers that everyone else has”) or simply disregard any information that doesn’t jibe with their own slanted view.

          I’m sure that Les Moonves, as the head of a successful, money-making company is going to make up financial figures. You don’t want to accept the truth because that would mean accepting that soap replacements make more money for a network than the soaps do. For the record, “Let’s Make a Deal” actually attracts more viewers that GL did in its final years. If you don’t believe me, have Marc hunt down those ratings. Of course, if he does you probably won’t believe him and then start calling him names (although I’m not opposed to calling Marc names).

          No one has claimed that Marc is giving false numbers, it’s all in the way that he presents it…playing up the good, while ignoring any news that is bad. You all may not go away, but your soaps have. And they aren’t coming back, no matter how positive Marc spins his “news”.

        • Pat


          For your information, CBS Pres./CEO Les Moonves stated in an interview last fall that in a 5-7 year period, CBS’s daytime lineup went from losing roughly $25 million/year to making more than $100 million/year. How did they accomplish that? Largely by cancelling the expensive/declining GL and ATWT, and replacing them with the cheaper Let’s Make a Deal and The Talk respectively. You can moan, whine, and throw a tantrum about that all you want, but those are the cold-hard FACTS and nothing will change that no matter what false garbage you type.

          In case you’re unaware, television is first and foremost a business and networks exist to make as much money as possible with the programs that they air. Plus, they have to answer to shareholders. They are NOT charities that exist above all to entertain you or anyone else every day and sustain 40, 50, 60 year old shows. I can assure you that CBS has zero regrets about their decisions from within the last few years. Besides, it’s been widely mentioned that Proctor & Gamble wanted to get out of the daytime drama business itself, just like ABC and NBC are looking into doing.

          The Talk does not need to and has not even been expected to equal or surpass ATWT to make more money for CBS. As it is now, it’s only slightly below where ATWT was at the end in 2010 and it has cultivated a loyal audience that’s showing growth. Plus, LMAD has grown in popularity and it now has surpassed GL’s end mark in 2009. Since talk shows and game shows are 40-50% cheaper to make than soap operas, they have much more ratings leeway to be profitable for their network.

          That’s the reality of how networks do business in their daytime dayparts these days and that will not change anytime soon. If you can’t accept that- tough.

  • Edna Barefoot

    I don’t care what or who is right about ratings. I know ABC has lost a lot of viewers. Nothing used to replace OLTL made it. So now they put GH in OLTL slot. GH will get high ratings cause along with GH fans GH now has OLTL & AMC fans watching. That is the only show I & million others watch on ABC. Katie has already showed she can’t make it on a talk show. If they want to go back to #1 bring back AMC OLTL & GH together & the viewers will come back. We will not come back & watch trash & I think we have proved that. It has been a year since AMC was cancelled & we are not watching ABC. My favorite soap IS OLTL & I’m a true fan. Til I see OLTL back on somewhere I will not watch ABC. If that is forever so be it. Too many Networks to worry about ABC. I am not alone. There are millions of fans just like me. Boycott ABC & their advertisers.

    • Pat

      Edna, you’re clearly delusional just like the all-knowing (not) Troy above and are just too stubborn to see reality. It’s hard to determine which of you is more out of touch.

      I don’t know what you’re looking at, but I’m guessing that you did not see GH’s final ratings for the week of Sept. 10-14. If you saw them, then you’d know that GH got a 1.9 for the week and dropped in almost every category. That’s certainly not “high”. Somehow I don’t think that most OLTL and AMC fans have moved over to watch GH. But if it makes you feel better to ignore the clear reality of this entire situation to suit your own absurd propaganda, then keep doing so. It’s all just wishful thinking on your part.

      Considering that was probably one of the most promoted and hyped weeks by ABC for GH in a long time for its time slot change, that’s an embarrassment- sorry. In the midst of a big stunt story with a big location shoot that ABC surely poured millions more into, the show could not crack a 1.9 for the climax. No matter how you try to spin it, that’s not good at all.

Login to TVMI
Recent Ratings Topics at TVMI Forum
TVMI on Social Media
Like Us on Facebook
Daytime TV Poll

TV Media Insights, the new one-stop shop for television and media, is now available on Facebook. Updated ratings, observations, breaking news, interactive polls, celebrity gossip, winners and losers, TV will now find it all at TV Media Insights.

Marc Berman mines dozens of media resources, researches and gathers the information and metrics and delivers to our readers, the very information that you are hungry for. Enjoy your stay and come back tomorrow!

Latest Tweets From TVMI
Marc Berman mines dozens of media resources to bring you TV Media Insights. The best in TV ratings, TV news and analysis, TV Gossip and TV Network Buzz.
  • Wishing everyone a happy, healthy and safe Thanksgiving.
  • Please un-follow me here and follow me at MarcBermanMrTV. Happy Thanksgiving!
  • The TV Turkeys of 2015...Happy Thanksgiving!
Popular Posts