- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tucker ratings double Bleeding Megyn's ratings
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:29 pm to idlewatcher
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:29 pm to idlewatcher
His show is pretty balanced. He has a lot of good discussions but he usually reserves 1-2 segments and usually the opening one to beat down a crazy person. If it were a nonstop hour of that, I could see it getting old
0
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:36 pm to Covingtontiger77
quote:/320million =0.00124375
Kelly averaged 398,000
So, in a country of roughly 320 Million potential viewers, Meygn was asking for $20 Million/year for 0.12% of the potential viewership????
Holy crap! We ALL went into the wrong line of work!! $20 million/year for 7 hours of work a week for almost no one watching!
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:40 pm to DelU249
quote:She only did well at all because she was sandwiched between Hannity and O'Reilly. People just kept their TV's on for 3 hours.
expected and also she never did very well with the key demo as a percentage of her audience.
Now, she's on her own and is crashing and burning. Her new buds can't possibly have too much affection for her and the fox loyalists, especially Trumpkins, hate her.
Not to mention the fact that she's in her mid 40's now. The decline is real and has been for a while, as I've said before.
I told you all of this. Told you, I did. Me>>>>>>You
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:41 pm to idlewatcher
So in 2024?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:43 pm to Sidicous
until a week before the election she was far and away the second highest rated cable news show. she had o'reilly (#1) as a lead in though and she certainly wasn't worth the money in terms of ad revenue via viewership. They were paying her because they need a young marketable face of the channel when o'reilly leaves and the hope was that she would build her audience to his size (which was never going to happen)
they were paying her for her youth essentially. tucker Carlson's early success and her constant demands probably resulted in fox telling her to go frick herself and she jumped to nbc. the last 2 months the evening lineup was the weakest part of the lineup, she was 4th, and it started with her. Hannity's numbers have gone up as a percentage of tucker's lead in
they were paying her for her youth essentially. tucker Carlson's early success and her constant demands probably resulted in fox telling her to go frick herself and she jumped to nbc. the last 2 months the evening lineup was the weakest part of the lineup, she was 4th, and it started with her. Hannity's numbers have gone up as a percentage of tucker's lead in
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:45 pm to blueboy
it's my opinion (and it's getting closer and closer to fact) that she sunk Hannity's ratings. he's on late and she dropped too much of o'reilly's lead in. I really don't like Hannity, but like I said, the numbers look better for Hannity with tucker as the lead in.
you were right she was starting to lose her audience post election.
you were right she was starting to lose her audience post election.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:46 pm to blueboy
quote:when I saw her on a segment on tucker's 3rd show to plug her book, it told me a lot.
Now, she's on her own and is crashing and burning. Her new buds can't possibly have too much affection for her and the fox loyalists, especially Trumpkins, hate her.
I would bet almost everyone at the network fricking hated her. you don't do that. it's unheard of.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:47 pm to DelU249
quote:is that something to do with the ghey?
he doubles her in the key demo, which is male
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:50 pm to Sidicous
quote:
o, in a country of roughly 320 Million potential viewers,
So every breathing human in the US is a potential viewer?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:51 pm to DelU249
quote:
until a week before the election she was far and away the second highest rated cable news show. she had o'reilly (#1) as a lead in though and she certainly wasn't worth the money in terms of ad revenue via viewership. They were paying her because they need a young marketable face of the channel when o'reilly leaves and the hope was that she would build her audience to his size (which was never going to happen)
they were paying her for her youth essentially. tucker Carlson's early success and her constant demands probably resulted in fox telling her to go frick herself and she jumped to nbc. the last 2 months the evening lineup was the weakest part of the lineup, she was 4th, and it started with her. Hannity's numbers have gone up as a percentage of tucker's lead in
My point is ratings for these talking heads are so low NONE of them should get paid much. Local TV news in major cities (LA/NYC/Dallas/FtWorth etc.) have to get higher ratings than a paltry 1/2 million in primetime.
How can anyone, with a straight face, claim any of these networks, much less any individual "host", are an influence on anything on a national scale? How much is Rafael Madcow getting from Clinton Nonsense Network to be tuned out by all but what, 350, Americans?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 2:51 pm to skinny domino
no, people relate more to people like them and advertisers pay a higher rate for shows with a higher number in that demo.
basically, tucker costs less, and makes them a lot more money and boosts the 10 ET slot out of irrelevancy. I imagine he's a very popular guy right now with executives. he came out of nowhere and saved them from a real pickle because remember that o'reilly is leaving soon, Hannity (also in his mid 50s) doesn't have the broad appeal of an o'reilly
tucker checked every fricking box
basically, tucker costs less, and makes them a lot more money and boosts the 10 ET slot out of irrelevancy. I imagine he's a very popular guy right now with executives. he came out of nowhere and saved them from a real pickle because remember that o'reilly is leaving soon, Hannity (also in his mid 50s) doesn't have the broad appeal of an o'reilly
tucker checked every fricking box
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:07 pm to Sidicous
huh?
they bring in audiences, which means ad dollars
cooper gets half a million on an ordinary night, when there is some huge news or something of interest, he gets 1.5 million (that's his best night) and he gets $11 million a year. so he doesn't have value, but bill o'reilly's audience is as high as 4.5 million on some nights, and they're people who make a nice living. he's absolutely worth the $20 million they pay him. I really don't like his show or him personally, but he's worth every cent.
they bring in audiences, which means ad dollars
cooper gets half a million on an ordinary night, when there is some huge news or something of interest, he gets 1.5 million (that's his best night) and he gets $11 million a year. so he doesn't have value, but bill o'reilly's audience is as high as 4.5 million on some nights, and they're people who make a nice living. he's absolutely worth the $20 million they pay him. I really don't like his show or him personally, but he's worth every cent.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:09 pm to Sidicous
quote:she's with msnbc and she's the biggest draw that's not on fox news. she kicks the shite out of cnn night in and night out. she gets about $7 million per year.
Rafael Madcow getting from Clinton Nonsense Network
I don't get the appeal, but she's a draw. you put her on cnn (which has better brand recognition even though it's diminishing daily) and she would do even better. she's further down the guide/dial and that counts for something. her ratings are impressive. she has nothing around her.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:30 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
That got her a bigger payday,
I have my doubts
quote:
Vanity Fair claims that the money she signed for was far less than she would have made at FNC, suggesting Kelly was more concerned about her platform and less about her compensation.
She screwed herself over Trump, and Fox lowballed her during contract talks. She bailed at the first offer
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:34 pm to Covingtontiger77
Megyn's inability to make good sandwiches hurt her.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:35 pm to Covingtontiger77
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:36 pm to RobbBobb
i would love to know her compensation
if she is making less with the bigger platform and opportunity, she may end up a loser in this because the daytime talk show format is in my opinion an imminent train wreck.
if she is making less with the bigger platform and opportunity, she may end up a loser in this because the daytime talk show format is in my opinion an imminent train wreck.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:37 pm to Covingtontiger77
Pretty amazing considering how smoking hot she is.
But alas that only goes so far Megyn. Sorry.
But alas that only goes so far Megyn. Sorry.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:39 pm to Covingtontiger77
I love it. You couldn't have paid me to watch Megyn Kelly. I actually enjoy watching Tucker, he might be my favorite on FNC.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 3:46 pm to DelU249
quote:
Fox, Tucker and Kelly are winners for sure
NBC is the loser. She'll be on MSNBC evening lineup in a year. Book it
We´ll see.
I think it´s possible that she takes herself very seriously, and may fancy herself another Baba Wawa or Diane Sawyer.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News