NBC viewers have a median household income of $62,000 among adults 25 to 54. ABC viewers' median income is $60,000, followed by CBS at $57,000, FOX at $55,000, The WB at $49,000 and UPN at $40,000.

Network viewers are descrived as the network's average audience, according to numbers from Nielsen Media Research.

From The ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS; 16 May, 2006 (Tuesday)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I kinda EXPECTED UPN to have the, ah, distinction of possessing the audience with the lowest median income.....:rolleyes:

But it's VERY flabbergasting to see CBS after the formerly "Poor Man's Network", ABC.....NBC, even! After all, it WAS once upon a time that The BIG EYE was once known as The TIFFANY NETWORK. And with GOOD REASON, too! What with ALL the high-rated, high-quality shows that aired circa 1960's-1980's..(With the DEFINITE exceptions of "LOST IN SPACE" & "GILLIGAN'S ISLAND", of course..:P )

As for NBC, well, what with NO more JENNIFER ANISTON ("FRIENDS") to feast MY peepers on, nor DAVID LETTERMAN to guffaw at.....how did THEY get the TOP-DOG mantle, with NOTHING the hell left? IMO.. :confused:

I kinda EXPECTED UPN to have the, ah, distinction of possessing the audience with the lowest median income.....:rolleyes:
Are you equally unsurprised that Fox ended up behind the big three?

Are you equally unsurprised that Fox ended up behind the big three?

Not really. UPN has more insipid and tasteless sitcoms than FOX does....

And UPN has no programmes like "24", or even any more "home grown" goods like "STAR TREK", either......

So how exactly is low quality of programs related to less affluent viewers? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? If there is evidence to support some particular theory, what happens when we apply that same theory to Fox's poor showing?

Statistics vary depending on any person's desire to answer study questions. What you have there are the averages dependant on the people who actually did the study instead of just hanging up the phone. Unless it was a call-in statistical analogy, in which you have a representation of the incomes for those people who bother to phone & voice an opinion.

It could aslo mean that NBC viewers are more apt to lie about their income. :shrug:

BTW, you left no link. Which is really unusual for you. :eek3:

myst makes a good point. i'm interested on the terms of reference used, the amount of people surveyed, and how representative they are of the american public

these would probably be very valuable statistics for advertisers and networks so who were paying Nielsen Media Research to carry out this research. i doubt they did it for free

Bah, I think most statistics are a load of manure. :P

Unless I need them to prove someone wrong. ;)

(With the DEFINITE exceptions of "LOST IN SPACE" & "GILLIGAN'S ISLAND", of course..:P )



Take that back! :mad:

Gilligan's Island rawks! It's very high brow.....it features a millionaire who takes his money on three hour sight seeing excursions, and a professor, (professor!), who can make damned near anything from empty coconut shells.

...you left no link. Which is really unusual for you. :eek3:

Only because there WASN'T any...I could only find the article (About the size of 4 postage stamps or so) in the PRINTED medium. Hence the lapse between publication & posting. The link was UTL ("Unable To Locate" in Cleveland Police Terminology).

*whips BadNews with wet noodle*

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=9970

Actually in all this heat that wet noodle might feel good :happysad: