"Good point...but what about the 'spillover effect'? Certainly those moneymakers mentioned; Today, 60 Minutes, Meet the Press, etc......are losing share too. Are they not?
...Appreciate your take."
What spillover effect? Today makes lots of money. Kate the slut gets paid something like $6 mm/year. 60 Minutes is highly profitable. Meet the Press is extremely profitable (just 1 guy interviewing big names). Production costs for these programs are relatively cheap.
As far as market share/ratings, they have been consistent for the last 3-5 years. I don't see any dip in ratings at all for these programs. Remember, some of these programs have strong lead-ins and lead-outs. For example, 60 Minutes is preceded by NFL. Good Morning America leads to Regis.
6:30 News is a different matter, which costs a lot to produce and has been declining for the last 30 years. There you can make a case with some arguments, although ratings for Brokaw/Jennings have been steady for the last 5 years. However, Dan Rather has lost about 30% of his viewers. I suspect that he will lose more as a result of Memogate scandal.
It's not that I'm disputing 'Affable Eva's' salary, or that the other shows are highly profitable....and I'm really not trying to be a curmudgeon, because I do appreciate your responses.
It's just that I find it hard to believe that there are not an ever-increasing # of folk who do not watch these programs. Specifically the ones that you noted as being profitable (still).
Could be local focus hocus pocus on my part. I wonder. I would expect that the Nielsen ratings would show a downward trend, increasing in 'slope' for the last, what?, 10 years especially? You know, sort of inversely proportional to the upward slope of talk radio & the internet.
FRegards,
john