• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

Nickelodeon's Ratings Drop -- and the Meanest Thing the Disney Channel's Ever Said

TMC1982

Sidekick
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
0
Points
31



Nickelodeon is down in the ratings, and in the dark about why. After 16 years of dominating children's television, the network finds itself in the midst of a mysterious ratings slide serious enough to drive concerns about its parent company's stock and prompt an investigation with Nielsen. In just-released November ratings, Nickelodeon was down 19 percent year-over-year in ratings for viewers age 2 and older. In October, its ratings fell 13 percent.
Wall Street is paying attention: This week, one analyst downgraded his rating on Viacom stock from buy to neutral and the other lowered his target price slightly. Both cited Nickelodeon ratings declines. Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman calls the slide "inexplicable" and an "aberration" -- but so far, a coordinated effort by the network and Nielsen to find some glitch that might explain it has come up empty. At least one Nick rival doesn't buy the idea that there's anything wrong with the way Nielsen tracks childrens' ratings -- and poked fun at Dauman's choice of words. "We don't think there's a glitch in kids ratings," the Disney Channel said in a statement to TheWrap. "The ratings strength of Disney Channel and Disney XD is 'inexplicable' to some but we are very clear on what's happening -- it's the popularity of our programming." Could SpongeBob -- gulp -- just be getting old? It's definitely not a case of kids spending more time on their homework: Preteen viewership is up overall.

Through Nov. 20 of this TV season, an average of 5.8 million children between age 2 and 11 are watching television at any given minute, an increase of 1.7 percent over last season, Nielsen says. Nick's slide comes at a particularly bad time: The last three months of the year are especially important to the network because of ads for holiday films and toys. The stakes are also high because no cable network earns higher total-day ratings than Nick, whose closest rival is The Disney Channel.

Both benefit from young audiences with plenty of spare time during the day -- and parents who use it as a plug-in babysitter. Though it trails them in total-day viewing, the Cartoon Network is the third-most-watched kids' network after Nick and the Disney Channel, and has shared some of Nick's ratings woes. But in the latest monthly ratings it seems to be digging itself out, while Nickelodeon's latest numbers have only gotten worse. Nick believes the problem could lie with Nielsen's sampling of its audience, and has worked with the company behind the scenes to examine several possibilities.

"We've been doing this for 30 years, and we've been No. 1 for 16, going on 17 years, with 2-to-11 year-olds. This is a short-term problem," Nickelodeon spokesman Dan Martinsen told TheWrap. "The bottom line is whatever has happened with the sample, this is what we're working with now." He said the network still expects to finish the year as the top network among viewers age 2 to 11, and that the network plans 500 new episodes in the next few months to increase ratings. Its new shows include "Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness." "We're moving more aggressively," he said. Dauman said in a Nov. 10 earnings call that Nick's ratings are usually very predictable, and that set-top box data shows "meaningfully different viewership trends" than those Nielsen has recorded.

But Nielsen stands by its numbers. In a statement, it said it has worked with the network and the Media Rating Council, the industry's independent auditing organization, on an "exhaustive assessment" of its ratings. "To date, the review process confirms that our measurement methodology, operations and related reporting processes are working as expected," it said. Nick first noticed the drop in September. According to the latest numbers, Nick fell to an average 0.75 rating over each entire day in November, down from 0.91 in November of 2010. It reached about 1.4 million households this November, down from roughly 1.7 million in November of last year.

The Disney Channel posted a 4 percent year-over-year ratings increase in November, from 0.67 to 0.7. (Nick doesn't consider it a direct competitor since it isn't ad-supported.) The Cartoon Network was flat year-over-year in November, recovering somewhat from its own recent losses. In October, Nick dropped 13 percent in the ratings while Disney gained 5 percent and the Cartoon Network dropped 12 percent. In September, Nick dropped 8 percent while Disney dropped 2 percent and Cartoon Network fell 5 percent. The slide isn't a case of other networks eating Nick's lunch -- not all of it, anyway. Disney's small gains don't begin to account for Nick's losses.

Neither does the fast growth of The Hub, which grew 40 percent year-over-year in November. (That isn't as impressive as it sounds when you consider that the growth reflects a ratings increase from 0.05 to 0.07, as the number of daily households grew from 56,000 to 76,000.) Disney's XD, meanwhile, has posted ratings gains of 8 percent in October and 15 percent in November after a flat September. It climed to 223,000 households in November, up from 205,000 year-over-year.



 
Well get better shows. There is a reason why 90s nick block is doing so well
 
They really need to do away with all the live action tween crap (except iCarly since that's pretty much the only good one) and get back to what made that channel so popular and unique in the first place - the Nicktoons.

Although I don't understand how the Disney channel is doing so well when they play the exact same crap too.
 
Maybe they should try making new shows not made by Dan Schneider.
 
the big problem is they need to change there schedules then spamming spongebob episodes almost during half there on air hrs. Along with more promotion on new episodes of what ever shows.
 
if they were to fire president who would be a better replacement?
 
Seems like Disney just has better offerings for kids whether its the tween live action stuff or cartoons. They even show Naruto which is pretty popular.

Does Nickelodeon have any new cartoons? The only cartoon Im sure still airs on Nick is Spongebob.
 
They have Voltron and soon to be Ninja Turtles.
 
The problem is Nick is afraid to be edgy like they were in the 90's. Their shows talk down to kids and insult their intelligence (although admittedly Sponge Bob and Fairly Odd Parents sneak in adult jokes here and there). But there was just....something about the nick shows of the 90's that made them fun for kids and adults. They were innocent yet edgy...I dunno, i can't quite explain it, but there was a magic to those shows that the modern ones lack.
 
Ha ya look back at ren and stimpy very adult stuff but it was still a kids show. But times change and we do have to remember censors then are a lot different today. Take for example wwf/wwe in the 90s they where very edgy and today they are so PG. Really like I said above what they need to do it air less spongebob during there on air hrs and bit the rest of there shows in a better rerun cycle and for new episodes promote each show more evenly. Or at least show a promo for new episodes of what ever show at least 3 times a day. Once in morning block, once in. With that ratings for shows could be better.
 
Well get better shows. There is a reason why 90s nick block is doing so well

What's the current lineup for that ?

I'm waiting for Pete & Pete and Are you afraid of the dark?
 
And really disney is noo different then nick spamming there shows like phinease and ferb, wizards, and formally hanna montana. Like I said all they need to do is revamp the schedule to air all shows more evenly and more promos/commericals for new episodes/specials and all.
 
I think so far they have All That, Kenan and Kel, Hey Dude, and Doug.
 
So... What was the "meanest thing" Disney said?
 
So... What was the "meanest thing" Disney said?
Nana-nana Boo-Boo we are better than you!
mkdldh.gif
 
The problem is Nick is afraid to be edgy like they were in the 90's. Their shows talk down to kids and insult their intelligence (although admittedly Sponge Bob and Fairly Odd Parents sneak in adult jokes here and there). But there was just....something about the nick shows of the 90's that made them fun for kids and adults. They were innocent yet edgy...I dunno, i can't quite explain it, but there was a magic to those shows that the modern ones lack.

Somebody wrote this blog (unfortunately, the link no longer works) from a year ago which was pretty much on point in regards to Nick no longer being cutting edge and original:
http://ifeelknifed.blogspot.com/2010/05/nickelodeon-has-lost-its-ident ity.html

Watch this montage of old Nickelodeon bumpers and promos from the late '80s and early '90s. These little clips are funny, strange, inventive, colorful, sometimes messy, sometimes just plain weird. But they are always fun and creative. They are always offbeat and interesting. They always manage to capture what it means to be a kid. And they were pretty much unlike anything else on television at the time. No other channel had promos like these (except Nick at Nite, 'natch).

You watch these promos and you "get" what Nickelodeon is: A wacky, weird, messy, unpredictable, strange, funny, silly, imaginative place. It's not just a TV channel for kids to call their own, it's like the very mind of a child come to life. There's nothing "cool" or glamorous or slick about it; this is a channel that embraces the geekier, weirder side of life and it works because most kids aren't the popular, good-looking kings and queens of their school and playground -- most kids are the dorks and the geeks, awkward and strange and average, just trying to have fun and be silly and be... kids. No little mini rock stars or glamor girls here.

This is very different from old school Nick, which often had SEVERAL 30 second bits that just promoted the channel itself and not any specific show. For current-day Nick, all I could find is this one promo.

This is evidence in my mind that Nickelodeon as a brand and a unique identity is no more. The channel can't do a variety of little 30 second promos to promote the network identity because the network no longer has a unique identity. They tried to make this new promo seem old school with the slime, but really, even the slime is now slick and bland. It's all a pale comparison to the vibrant promotionals that Nickelodeon used to run.

I know I'm late to the party in noticing it, but Nickelodeon is now just "Disney Channel, Part 2" -- a channel filled with tween sitcoms starring glammed-out, gorgeous teen idols whom the network executives hope to turn into the next Hannah Montanas (complete with merchandising, record albums, music videos, and concerts).

All of these shows are heavy on the romance/relationship stuff as well as issues of popularity and status within the shows' settings (i.e.: high school, the fashion industry, the music industry, etc.). Implicitly they suggest that girls must dress in the latest fashion trends, style themselves with lots of makeup, and be overly concerned with fame and celebrity (i.e.: the characters on iCARLY have a web show; VICTORIOUS revolves around a young woman who wants to become a famous singer; TRUE JACKSON VP is focused on the fashion industry and clothing as image; BIG TIME RUSH is about a boy band that wants to make it big).

From watching these shows, one would think the life of a kid today should revolve around Internet celebrity, fashion, and the music industry (specifically the "teen idol" industry). These shows are often funny and entertaining but they don't reflect what it's like to be an ordinary kid. They give kids a superficial and image-obsessed fantasy version of adolescence that is probably very intoxicating for the kids watching these shows, but at what cost?

Now, speaking to my fellow twentysomething nostalgics, let's not kid ourselves: Old School Nick had some terrible, vapid shows too (FIFTEEN, WELCOME FRESHMAN, and ROUNDHOUSE come most quickly to mind). I'm not arguing that everything on Nick was perfect in the early '90s and everything on Nick now is crap. There have always been crappy shows on Nickelodeon, there will always be crappy shows on Nickelodeon.

What I am saying, though, is that Nick as a channel used to have an identity that was more free spirited and fun. The channel itself had an overall spirit of weirdness and messiness and creativity that was stronger than its individual shows. Nickelodeon the channel was as varied and unpredictable as the kids who watched it. There was something for everyone. And it was a place where nerds and ordinary kids could come for television that spoke to them. THE ADVENTURES OF PETE AND PETE, REN AND STIMPY, SALUTE YOUR SHORTS, CLARISSA EXPLAINS IT ALL, ROCKO'S MODERN LIFE, ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE DARK?, DOUBLE DARE, LEGENDS OF THE HIDDEN TEMPLE, GUTS -- the list goes on and on.

Once upon a time, Nickelodeon was for real, ordinary kids. Now it's for glamor girls and high-gloss celebrities. Compare and contrast the Nickelodeon kids of the golden age versus the "stars" of today:

Unfortunately, in chasing those Hannah Montana/Disney Channel dollars, Nick has ceded its unique identity for the love of the filthy lucre. In a way, Nick's success as a television channel has been its own undoing. As the channel has become more successful, more money is at stake, and with more money at stake, executives want to take fewer chances. Seeing the success of the teen idol formula on Disney, the Nick execs counter with their own teenybopper stars and soon all of the inventive, unusual, and offbeat stuff that Nickelodeon was known for falls by the wayside in favor of safe, bland, marketable teenage commodities.

Now without an unique brand identity of its own to carry the channel forward, the success of Nickelodeon the channel depends entirely on the success of its tween/teen stars. The channel doesn't have brand loyalty anymore; it has only star loyalty. Kids don't love Nickelodeon, they love Miranda Cosgrove or Victoria Justice. Nickelodeon doesn't mean anything as a brand or as a channel except as the channel that shows iCARLY and SPONGEBOB. Nick doesn't even have The Splat anymore, that iconic, shapeshifting logo that symbolized everything it meant to be a kid to a generation who grew up in the '80s and '90s. Now Nickelodeon is as generic as all the other kids channels out there, one in a sea of many, no different than the rest.

Nick may be trying to hang on to the slime and the faint sense that they are the messier, more rebellious channel, but one need only look at the promos airing on the channel today and compare them to the promos from the '80s and '90s to see how far the channel has fallen. Nick might still have the slime, but it's lost the spirit of messiness and fun that made the slime great.
 
I still firmly believe that they should bring back Invader ZIM and Ren & Stimpy (as long as they don't give Kricfalusi total freedom like they did when the show was revived on Spike).
 
and that can change easily with replacement of execs.
 
I still firmly believe that they should bring back Invader ZIM and Ren & Stimpy (as long as they don't give Kricfalusi total freedom like they did when the show was revived on Spike).

Actually, from what I can tell from everything I've seen about the behind the scenes, there was significantly more meddling from the people up top at Spide than there were at Nikelodeon. Spike kept pushing Jon K to be more and more adult and more blunt and overt with his adult themes, which ended up killing the humor. Nick, on the other hand, generally didn't care how weird and gross and dark ren and Stimpy was, they got good ratings and weren't losing advertisers. They fired John K, not because of his contect, but because the episodes he ran frequently came in late and over budget and he was a pain in the ass to work with. If you look at the show preJohn K and post-John K it's not any different as far as content goes.
 
I miss Snick. The last time I enjoyed a solid block of television on saturday night was about two or three years ago on Adult Swim.

Anyway, the only good thing I can say about current Nick is that the promos for their tweencoms are not quite as cringe worthy as Disney's.
 
And really disney is noo different then nick spamming there shows like phinease and ferb, wizards, and formally hanna montana. Like I said all they need to do is revamp the schedule to air all shows more evenly and more promos/commericals for new episodes/specials and all.

While we're at it, here are my own personal pet peeves regarding the Disney Channel:
*Virtually every live-action sitcom since at least 2005-06 has to somhow involve a "wishful fulfillment" premise and/or something involving kids getting or wanting to get into show business. At the end of the day, it's really all about manufacturing the latest teen idol in hopes of getting their music on Radio Disney and what not. Good Luck Charlie seems to be the only sitcom from this period that seems relatively "realistic".

*Why does every live-action show have to come from It's a Laugh Productions? For people who complain that Nick relies too heavily on Dan Schneider, well Disney isn't so different in regards to redundancy or sticking to a certain formula. I think that the last original (meaning not imported from Canada like Life w/ Derek, My Babysitter is a Vampire, or Mr. Young) Disney show to not be produced by It's a Laugh Productions was Phil from the Future.

*Animation other than Phineas & Ferb on Disney are virtually an afterthought if you ask me. If Disney were smart, they would actually do something with the classic characters like Mickey, Donald, Goofy, etc. like Cartoon Network has done with the Looney Toons characters (i.e. reintroduce them to a modern, more contemparary audience) instead of virtually having them as babysitters. You know something is wrong when Selena Gomez was practically become more of the "face of the channel" than freaking Mickey Mouse!

*This is probably a minor complaint but does virtually every Disney Channel original movie have to feature actors from Disney Channel shows?
 
ya it would be nice if they made a new real series for the classic animated disney characters, besides that disney junior crap they have them at in the early morning. But ya for disney all they got on main channel is phineas and fish hooks. Where as xd they got what like 2 other series there plus reruns of old marvel toons along with the current avengers toon and soon to join them usm toon.

As for the dcom films personally i dont have a issue there with them using actors from various disney shows and all that. I actually have enjoyed some of the more recent years ones. Though i miss the late 90s/early 00s ones.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"