New `Idol' Season Shows Mean Streak

[Big Wheel]

True, but the tanks these days are usually very rapid for a variety of reasons. AI really took off in seasons 2 and 3, but it appears to be finally peaking (graph the number of viewers of the season premiere per year and you'll see that things are starting to taper off).

I honestly wonder if you know anything at all about television.

According to MSNBC, last week's premiere was seen by a record 37.3 million people, representing a five percent INCREASE over last year's record.

How do back-to-back record ratings constitute "tapering off"?

Because the rate of the increase is decreasing. The second derivative is negative. Learn some calculus, Dan.

As for AFHV, it may be a success in that it's still on and making money, but it's not a success the way I define it above (viewership still peaking and stable personnel). AFHV peaked in its second season in 1990 with 38 million viewers a week. It now has about 8-9 million and is jockeying for position with such heavyweights as According to Jim. It's starting to resemble the Jeopardy model - it's doing well enough that you just can't cancel it, but it's certainly not burning up the ratings. I didn't say that I think AI will be outright canceled by 2009, I said I think it will start to be a shell of its former self in terms of ratings.

Bonus link for everyone who hates Jim Belushi:

Edited January 21, 2007 by Big Wheel

[Dan Gould]

True, but the tanks these days are usually very rapid for a variety of reasons. AI really took off in seasons 2 and 3, but it appears to be finally peaking (graph the number of viewers of the season premiere per year and you'll see that things are starting to taper off).

I honestly wonder if you know anything at all about television.

According to MSNBC, last week's premiere was seen by a record 37.3 million people, representing a five percent INCREASE over last year's record.

Also, there really are very, very few hit shows that cross the 300-episode mark. 250-270 seems to be a brick wall to me. AI already has 189.

How do back-to-back record ratings constitute "tapering off"?

Because the rate of the increase is decreasing. The second derivative is negative. Learn some calculus, Dan.

Tell you what, when entertainment reporters shout "Oh my god, the rate of the increase in American Idol's ratings is decreasing!" then I'll give a flying fuck about calculus. In the meantime, you should think about the fact that no show can tend toward 100% ratings. There is an upper limit to any show's ratings, and there is no reason why Idol can't maintain a rating near their current staggering highs. Think of one of those functions that increases fast then slows its rate of increase til it keeps getting closer and closer to, oh, let's say a 45 share.

Furthermore, it is obvious that there is a huge core of Idol fans (let's say 40 out of that 45 share) - what exactly is going to turn them away from the show?

Oh yeah - all those old judges.

As for AFHV, it may be a success in that it's still on and making money, but it's not a success the way I define it above (viewership still peaking and stable personnel).

You didn't define it by whatever BS definition of success you want to propose. You declared that it is off the air:

Also, there really are very, very few hit shows that cross the 300-episode mark. 250-270 seems to be a brick wall to me. AI already has 189.America's Funniest Home Videos had 350, and my guess is that the last 80 or so of those were made after Bob Saget left and nobody even knew that dreck was still running anymore.

So, you would be wrong. Try not to change the subject (now its your definition of "success") when you are shown to be wrong.

and is jockeying for position with such heavyweights as According to Jim. It's starting to resemble the Jeopardy model - it's doing well enough that you just can't cancel it, but it's certainly not burning up the ratings.

This is another foolish comment from someone who knows nothing about television, or the difference in economics between first-run syndication (Jeapardy) and network TV broadcasts of cheaper-than-cheap reality TV (AFHV).

Jeapardy has clearances in how many markets? 200? 300? In addition to the syndication fee, King sells its own advertising on Jeapardy (in other words, the local stations can't sell every spot, King gets some of them). This means that a show like Jeapardy, in as many markets as it is in, is a GIGANTIC success and does not need record setting ratings to succeed. It will run until King decides not to produce it any longer.

AFHV has virtually no production costs at all, except for the studio time, the host's salary, staff to review and edit video, and the lousy ten grand they offer to the winners. So comparing it to Jim[/] is the height of stupidity because the production costs of a sit-com, including 'star' salaries and writers probably means that with similar ratings, AFHV makes the network something on the order of 2-3 times as much profit.

[Big Wheel]

Dan, you're putting words in my mouth. Read my post again. I never said that it was flat-out impossible for AI to have more than 300 episodes, I said that it was very unlikely for it to cross the 300-episode mark without also experiencing a significant decline in terms of ratings.

I don't doubt that all those lesser shows are still profitable; they wouldn't still be on the air if they weren't. Hollywood is shallow, but it isn't stupid. The bulk of this discussion has been about ratings, not profit.

Anyway, time will tell and we'll see by the end of 2009 who's right.

[alocispepraluger102]

15 gazillion people watching these clowns, and 8 people(including family and friends) watching master musicians in their local(if they have one) jazz club. cant stomach it. wont watch.

[Dan Gould]

Dan, you're putting words in my mouth. Read my post again. I never said that it was flat-out impossible for AI to have more than 300 episodes, I said that it was very unlikely for it to cross the 300-episode mark without also experiencing a significant decline in terms of ratings.

I never implied or even remotely suggested that you believe it can't get passed 300 episodes. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I've put words in your mouth.

Anyway, time will tell and we'll see by the end of 2009 who's right.

You're right, and the nutshell difference between us is that you believe it will experience a significant decline in ratings by the 2009 season. I believe the show is a unique cultural phenomenon and will remain a ratings powerhouse three seasons from now.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Dan Gould

[Jim Alfredson]

Who cares?! It's television in its absolute worst form.

[Chuck Nessa]

I was about to post what Jim said.

[.:.impossible]

You guys are nit-wits. Do you realize what you are arguing (over the internet) about? Ridiculous.

[Big Wheel]

I agree that TV is a pretty stupid thing to argue about (and I don't even currently own one), but on the other hand, I think it's interesting to try to analyze things about what makes a successful show and see if you can come up with a model to trace the arc of its success. There have been two or three articles on this type of subject recently in the New Yorker (on hit movies and hit songs) and I guess they tempted me to indulge in a little armchair analysis myself.

[RDK]

I agree that TV is a pretty stupid thing to argue about (and I don't even currently own one), but on the other hand, I think it's interesting to try to analyze things about what makes a successful show and see if you can come up with a model to trace the arc of its success. There have been two or three articles on this type of subject recently in the New Yorker (on hit movies and hit songs) and I guess they tempted me to indulge in a little armchair analysis myself.

Indeed. If Chuck, who's so quick to dismiss AI, could figure out how to get just 1% of the massive AI audience to be as obsessed/interested in jazz as pop music then we'd all be in pretty good shape right now.

[Chuck Nessa]

I agree that TV is a pretty stupid thing to argue about (and I don't even currently own one), but on the other hand, I think it's interesting to try to analyze things about what makes a successful show and see if you can come up with a model to trace the arc of its success. There have been two or three articles on this type of subject recently in the New Yorker (on hit movies and hit songs) and I guess they tempted me to indulge in a little armchair analysis myself.

Indeed. If Chuck, who's so quick to dismiss AI, could figure out how to get just 1% of the massive AI audience to be as obsessed/interested in jazz as pop music then we'd all be in pretty good shape right now.

Not sure we need that 1%.

[Soul Stream]

As much as I want (and do in many ways) want to hate American Idol. It's really the ONLY primetime show that my whole family can watch together. That's saying something. I've got an 8 year old and an 11 year old, and it's nice that we can all sit down together and watch something that's not a bunch of doctors fucking, or desperate housewives fucking, or CSI digging up murder victims.

[jazzbo]

Last year I made my wife happy and took her to an Idol CONCERT.

Every show around us (Houston and Austin) sold out. There were people there in their sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties, teens and pre-teens. I haven't seen such an enthusiastic and attentive audience since I saw Stevie Wonder in a Chicago stadium in the seventies.

This is NOT just a TV phenomenum. And it's a serious cash cow that will graze a long time.

[chris olivarez]

I'm still trying to figure out the attraction of what has become so big about (1)Giving air time to people who not only can't sing on key but appear to have lost the key (2)Admittedly talented people who dispense one generic pop song after the other (3)The"idolization"of three hosts who week in and week out build themselves up at the expense of others. I await enlightement.

Edited January 22, 2007 by chris olivarez

[Dan Gould]

I'm still trying to figure out the attraction of what has become so big about (1)Giving air time to people who not only can't sing on key but appear to have lost the key (2)Admittedly talented people who dispense one generic pop song after the other (3)The"idolization"of three hosts who week in and week out build themselves up at the expense of others. I await enlightement.

I don't see how they are building themselves up at the expense of others. Randy didn't say "Yo, I played bass with Journey and produced hit records. You'll never make a hit record, dawg, but I have and I will again."

He just says, "yo yo yo, dawg, its not good, man."

Telling people they stink doesn't build oneself up. Its just telling it as it is.

As far as the "idolization" goes, its a simple matter of modern popular culture. You're the "stars" of a hit tv show, people (sad, pathetic ones) are going to become fans, and you'll get the star treatment from the popular media.

[Soul Stream]

One thing I saw that was funny...

They have a thing called "American Idol Rewind" that shows on off hours. It's old shows of AI. I saw the "Hollywood" tryout (which I think is the second round people selected go to) of Kelly Carkson. After she sang, Simon whispered "No, I just don't like this girl". Paula Abdul had to step in to save her being cut.

[RDK]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012101164.html

Special Olympics: No Beef With 'Idol'

By Lisa de Moraes

Monday, January 22, 2007; C07

Special Olymics International says "American Idol" should be commended for giving one of their former athletes the opportunity to be seen last week on national TV getting the Simon Cowell treatment.

"While polite isn't a word one would normally associate with Cowell and company, a viewing of the episode in question shows that the judges were in fact gracious and very encouraging to [Jonathan] Jayne during his rendition of 'God Bless America,' " the organization said in a statement, noting that "at one point, [judge Paula] Abdul commented admiringly about Jayne's spirit and advised him to 'always believe in yourself.' "

This year, as in the past, early episodes of "American Idol" feature mostly lousy auditions and the snarky reactions to these "Idol" wannabes by judges Randy Jackson, Abdul and, mostly, Cowell.

Fox and "Idol" producers and judges got a thumping late last week on TV talk shows and in newspaper articles for including the tryouts of the 21-year-old Jayne and another 20-something wannabe, Kenneth Briggs, with whom Jayne became friendly. "The View" led the charge, with Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck calling it an "all-time low" for the singing competition -- both episodes of which drew around 37 million viewers last week.

Those who condemned the inclusion of Jayne in Wednesday's episode are preaching against the Special Olympics' message. "Whether on the stage of 'American Idol' or on the field of competition for Special Olympics, people with intellectual disabilities don't want pity or special treatment," the group's statement read. "They want to be judged for who they are and appreciated for what they can achieve.

" 'American Idol' should be commended for providing Jayne with the same opportunity to succeed as any other contestant."

Cowell had already taken issue with criticism of the decision to air Jayne's audition.

"To suggest that because somebody has done something like [participate in the Special Olympics] they shouldn't be allowed to enter the competition smacks to me of censorship, to be honest with you," Cowell told TV critics over the weekend at Winter TV Press Tour 2007.

"I don't think that we should be censors on the type of people. And what we're trying to be, I think, on the show, more than anything else, is representative. A lot of the bad singers you are seeing -- trust me -- there are thousands that didn't make it through. And I think if you asked any of those thousands who didn't make it through, every one of them would say, 'I wish I had the chance.' "

Meanwhile, Jayne called the experience "absolutely wonderful" in an interview with the Seattle Times, explaining that he did it because he hopes to eventually land a job as a DJ or talk show host.