BY DAN
KENNEDY
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
For information on Dan Kennedy's book, Little People: Learning to
See the World Through My Daughter's Eyes (Rodale, October 2003),
click
here.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
FOX AND CNN: WHO'S WATCHING?
According to a new report by Fairness
& Accuracy in Reporting
(FAIR), the notion that the Fox News Channel is trouncing CNN in the
ratings is one of those received pieces of conventional wisdom that
doesn't hold up when you look at the facts.
The report,
by FAIR's Steve Rendall, finds that Fox's lead is in the "share" -
that is, how many viewers are watching at any given time. By
contrast, CNN holds a wide lead in the "cume," which measures how
many viewers tune in for at least six minutes a day. Because CNN
emphasizes news and Fox's programming consists mainly of
opinion-driven talk shows, viewers tend to stick with CNN for a
shorter period than Fox watchers - but there are many more of
them.
How dramatic is the difference
between the two measurements? Rendall writes:
CNN regularly claims a
cume about 20 percent higher than Fox's (Deseret Morning
News, 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height
of the fighting in Iraq, CNN's cume was significantly higher than
Fox's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million
for Fox (Cablefax, 4/30/03). But in the same period, the
ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with
an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN's 2.2 million.
As it turns out, these "lighter"
viewers are more valuable to advertisers than the folks who sit
inertly through The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity &
Colmes, and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren for hour
after hour. That's because showing viewers the same commercials over
and over is less cost-effective than hitting channel-surfers once or
twice. Thus CNN is able to charge higher advertising rates than Fox
even though its audience share is smaller. Then there's
this:
Interviewed in
MediaWeek last year (2/10/04), media business analyst Larry
Blasius suggested that snob appeal was part of the reason that he
didn't think Fox would soon catch CNN in the race for ad dollars
(MediaWeek, 2/10/04): "There are two kinds of news
advertisers. If you're talking cold remedies, you're buying
eyeballs. Others are looking for an environment, an image. They're
looking to reach decision-makers and influencers who watch news.
If you're an image-oriented product - a BMW, Mercedes, Lexus -
it's not even a question, you go with CNN. There's no comparison
in the quality of the journalism - CNN is light years ahead in
objectivity and reporting - and I don't think Fox's 'New York
Post on TV' approach appeals to the most desirable
consumers."
Why is this important? There have
been times over the past few years when CNN executives have sought to
emulate Fox - not nearly to the degree as the desperadoes at MSNBC,
but certainly there is more talk and less news at CNN than there was,
say, 10 years ago. FAIR's report shows that aping Fox is not just bad
journalism, it's bad business as well.
posted at 8:51 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
