Richest and Poorest TV Shows

[Beet]

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't watch much network TV at all now, since almost everything I enjoyed has been canceled and I haven't had much reason or time to pick up new shows, but I've always tended toward rich-people tastes (with the exception of Bob's Burgers).

[7,052,770]

Bob's Burgers really sticks out there on the "poor" list.

[Mr. Morden]

Is this median household income?  Because if so, then it's going to lump together young single people just out of college with legitimately "poor" people.

[Indy Texas]

Is this median household income?  Because if so, then it's going to lump together young single people just out of college with legitimately "poor" people.

Yeah, the presence of Family Guy and The Simpsons at the bottom and 60 Minutes at the top basically confirms the age effect that's going on here.

[Goldwater]

Apparently my two favorite sitcoms are the two richest ones.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All of those income numbers seem way inflated and have to be calculated in a weird way, like assuming that every person who watches the show is married or something. There is no way the median Glee fan has a median income of $70k, or even $35k for that matter. Unless it's just counting teenage girls off their parents' income, which is kind of stupid.

[Indy Texas]

All of those income numbers seem way inflated and have to be calculated in a weird way, like assuming that every person who watches the show is married or something. There is no way the median Glee fan has a median income of $70k, or even $35k for that matter. Unless it's just counting teenage girls off their parents' income, which is kind of stupid.

Well, from a marketing and consumer research point of view, it makes a lot more sense to do it that way. Generally speaking, households have access to the collective incomes of all members (unless you're dealing with college roommates or something).

A teenage girl may individually have zero income or a few thousand dollars a year from a minimum wage part-time job, but it's far more relevant to know if her parents are making $40K a year or $400K a year, since that's what is really determining the bulk of her consumption habits.

Likewise, a 40 year old married schoolteacher making $40K a year whose husband is a surgeon is going to have different consumption habits than a 40 year old single schoolteacher making $40K a year.

[Хahar 🤔]

Television viewers are a lot older than you think, and young people don't make a sufficient proportion of the viewing audience to skew numbers. The median age of a viewer of even The CW is 42; obviously the other networks skew older than that.

[MasterJedi]

Television viewers are a lot older than you think, and young people don't make a sufficient proportion of the viewing audience to skew numbers. The median age of a viewer of even The CW is 42; obviously the other networks skew older than that.

Xahar here is correct to some extent. And the way that networks determine cancelations/renewals of shows is massively outdated. The problem is the networks get most of their money through adds run during the shows so it helps with the number of viewers in the targeted demographics. This comes into problem because can be canceled by having high viewing numbers outside the demographic or that most people now DVR shows or watch them illegally streaming online.

I would be in full support about having the TV networks being able to track what everyone watches, not just  Nielson boxes, but then that would be an "invasion of privacy" even though it would give true viewing numbers.

[dead0man]

Is this median household income?  Because if so, then it's going to lump together young single people just out of college with legitimately "poor" people.

Yeah, the presence of Family Guy and The Simpsons at the bottom and 60 Minutes at the top basically confirms the age effect that's going on here.

Except CSI, Criminal Minds and Dateline are on the "poor" list.

[Mr. Morden]

Is this median household income?  Because if so, then it's going to lump together young single people just out of college with legitimately "poor" people.

Yeah, the presence of Family Guy and The Simpsons at the bottom and 60 Minutes at the top basically confirms the age effect that's going on here.

Except CSI, Criminal Minds and Dateline are on the "poor" list.

That's what I mean by saying it would lump both groups together into one category.  Young single people from upper middle class backgrounds might not have high earnings *yet*, but they eventually will.  But since "household income" is a snapshot, it'll count those people as being more "poor", and lump their shows together with those of the legitimately poor.

[Reaganfan]

Where's Big Bang Theory?

[Silent Hunter]

Median is the middle point of a listing... so basically half the people above that and half the people below that have that income.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Looks like both classes of people suck at picking TV shows.

[Famous Mortimer]

The poorest show is 48k. 48k isn't even poor. If that's household, that's dead average. If it's a single person, that's quite a well off person.

These numbers are just wrong.

[courts]

I don't watch much network TV at all now, since almost everything I enjoyed has been canceled and I haven't had much reason or time to pick up new shows, but I've always tended toward rich-people tastes (with the exception of Bob's Burgers).

apparently my tastes skew 'poor'

[angus]

Interesting Beet.  I guess I have a taste for the poorest shows:  I regularly watch four of the five poorest ones.  I'm not even familiar with any of the top five richest ones.  You have to go down to #6 on that list to find one that I've even heard of.  What does it mean anyway?