And I was really surprised that the viewers INCREASED over the last (January 14) Republican debate. IMPRESSIVE!
[averaged a respective 1.76 million viewers (CNN) and 1.02 million viewers (MSNBC) between 9 and 11 p.m. ET]
Because most of the viewers changed channels to CSPAN when the commentators started interrupting.
Posted elsewhere, but I love the spin.
They beat their own off-network, so therefore ratings are up.
They didn’t meet expectations, not by a long shot.
Barely half what FNC got last time.
And they did not beat CNNs last debate ratings.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/fox-trump-debate-lowest/2016/01/29/id/711838/
“The first Republican presidential debate of the season without front-runner Donald Trump generated smaller viewer interest than all but one of this cycle’s prior GOP gatherings, according to preliminary Nielsen estimates — but still drew four times as many viewers as Trump’s competing event.
In the metered-market overnights, which represent 56 of the nation’s largest markets, Fox News Channel’s debate from Iowa averaged an 8.4 household rating. This is up vs. the 7.4 overnight rating for the most recent GOP debate, on Fox Business Network earlier this month, but it stands as the second lowest-rated of the six Republican gatherings this cycle.”
Lucy, somebody not telling the truth here...
FNC reaches about 20% more households than FNC, so debate viewership is about a draw from that perspective, but still less than half of the first FNC debate.
It was a much better debate for Trump’s absence.
Shameless liars strike again
Lying by omission
Last debate was on Fox Business. Fox Business reaches many many few households then Fox News
1st Fox News debate got 24 million. This one got just over half that. For Fox News to only do about the same rating wise as Fox Business is a rating disaster.
The FBN debate isn’t a useful comparison because they don’t have comparable audience. Lots of people don’t get FBN.
Still, it shows Trump’s exit didn’t make much of a difference.
Which was good for CRuz IMO as he had a good night overall after a somewhat rough start.
It was the 2nd lowest rated debate out of 7.
Nice try, though.
Fox promised advertisers 15 million viewers before Trump dropped out and the debate advertising costs were based on the 15 million viewers projection.
So today Fox are having to give no-cost advertising spots to their debate advertisers to make up for the 25% audience shortfall versus their guarantee.
The 25% audience shortfall is costing Fox big bucks today.
It’s half of what they had with Trump
FNC - 94 million homes, 81% penetration
FBC - 74 million homes, 63% penetration
Figures lie and liars figure
In fact the very first question was about Trump...Yuk yuk.
Give me a break. Exactly 1/2 what they had before. Fox business is not on 90% of the TVs in American. What a joke, I guess sheeple will believe this spin.
Saw comments from ordinary watchers on twitter last night that the debate seemed more focused, serious and on point than previous debates this cycle. If that thought prevailed I would think it would hurt Trump’s standing.
That’s more than the last one, where Trump was in attendance. So maybe the debate fatigue lifted a little. Or maybe Trump skipping made little difference to those who Considered watching the debate.
...and they are going to raise the chocolate ration to 20 grams!