CNBC Viewership Down 28% 58 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The bloodbath at GE's propaganda station has reached critical levels: according to Nielsen, CNBC has lost 28% of viewers year over year, and 24% in the 25-54 age group category. This is obviously a stunning failure in an environment where the top stories on any other medium are finance and economy related. Maybe if they were to actually report objective news, Jeff Immelt would not have to scratch his head in wonderment, pondering how to generate ad revenue and something even remotely resembling positive cash flow. Then again what are the poor anchors to do since the infamous Immelt memo made the rounds. At least GE stock is up: and for that GE, Barney Frank and Goldman Sachs, deserve a golf clap.
Oh, and Larry, with a 46% drop, you may want to reevaluate your content strategy.
But for all intents and purposes, CNBC's core viewership has spoken and it openly demands more of Amanda Drudy's enhanced cleavage.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 58 comments:
Honestly, people turned to them in droves once the stock market started declining and what did they get? Kudlow telling them that this was a Goldilox economy, Dennis Kneale mocking viewers, telling them to stop being cowards and buy bank stocks, and Cramer telling people to accept that things were over valued but buy anyway. And of course they are bullish now because this rally is their last hope of vindication.
They claim to only report the news, but it very apparent they they have a strong bias. The only bias news should have is to be as truthful as possible.
I play the music channel.
There has been over-exposure as in the case of the venerable Warren Buffet. A little of him is wonderful,but hour after hour specials(it seems) makes you move the dial without even knowing it.
NOTE:Nothing said here is meant to discourage additional cleavage
CW
I think that, since they are only interested in propaganda and it hurts their credibility, they should hire midgets to deliver the financial news.
Next to cleavage, I always pay more attention to the TV when midgets are doing something out of the ordinary.
Now, just brainstorming here, how about we get Mini Me to dress up in jockey silks and ride a bikini clad Drudy onto the set for a riveting debate on QE with Robert Reich.
Suddenly, Mr. Reich seems more impressive, and we could sample the voice of Mr. Ed for Ms Trudy when she interjects into the conversation. That's Financotainment!
I think it's worth a shot Mr. Immelt.
By the way, that one's free, if you want me to save your company, I'll need a corner office and a sycophant.
CNBC is and will forever be the tool of GE and Obama. The staff was publically threatened to only say great things about Hussein O.
That's not remotely right wing.
On Jul 30 01:51 PM cswalker21 wrote:
> I've tuned in CNBC in the morning for years, just to get an update
> on any economic numbers released and get a sense of where the markets
> are heading. Lately I have to turn the sound off and just look at
> the numbers. The commentary is getting ridiculous. All they talk
> about is politics and it is very one-sided. As these ratings numbers
> show, CNBC has failed at gaining viewers by turning itself into a
> mouthpiece for the right wing, ala Fox News.
I don't have cable but if this existed I would sign up.
On Jul 30 01:58 PM yellowhoard wrote:
> I'm not sure that Ms. Drudy's impressive cleavage is enough to carry
> the weight of GE.
>
> I think that, since they are only interested in propaganda and it
> hurts their credibility, they should hire midgets to deliver the
> financial news.
>
> Next to cleavage, I always pay more attention to the TV when midgets
> are doing something out of the ordinary.
>
I get all I need online... wish my cable company up here provided Bloomberg, but I rent this condo so I have to take what the landlord's condo association provides.
Kudlow, Kernan, Kneel, Gasparino, Cramer, Caruso-Cabrera, etal - what a pathetic lineup of clueless ideologues and shills.
On Jul 30 01:51 PM cswalker21 wrote:
> I've tuned in CNBC in the morning for years, just to get an update
> on any economic numbers released and get a sense of where the markets
> are heading. Lately I have to turn the sound off and just look at
> the numbers. The commentary is getting ridiculous. All they talk
> about is politics and it is very one-sided. As these ratings numbers
> show, CNBC has failed at gaining viewers by turning itself into a
> mouthpiece for the right wing, ala Fox News.
On Jul 30 02:19 PM User 463689 wrote:
CNBC is shut off in my office for months.
On Jul 30 02:22 PM capgain wrote:
> So Durden is crowing about a viewership decline at CNBC? After reading
> his scree I tried to find his earlier report(s) about Air America
> going belly-up. Not a word! I guess "reporting" these days starts
> with a position and the "facts" are whatever you can make up to support
> that position. A sad but very poignant example of today's media.
On Jul 30 02:28 PM honestbob wrote:
> I am a GE stockholder who has complained for a couple of years, to
> no avail, that Kudlow's right wing bias does not belong on a news
> station. I think Caruso-Cabrera also lets her personal agendas interfere
> with her ability to be objective. As for Kneel with the silly grin,
> I wonder if he is Immelt's nephew. That would explain why he is on
> the station. Overall, I am one of those who watchs the tape or stats
> from time to time, but without the sound.
That is who is running your money.
On Jul 30 02:19 PM adviserSF wrote:
> I love a show with 85% advertising and 15% crap content.
On Jul 30 02:36 PM Bill L. wrote:
> I think the advertising is very insightful to who watches CNBC -
> cymbalta, every research platform under the sun, viagra, video professor,
> perfect push up etc. - therefore the CNBC viewer is depressed, underperforms
> in investing, has erectile dysfunction, is inept at using computers,
> and is fat.
>
> That is who is running your money.
An exception is Erin Burnett and Mark Haines whom both do a creditable job every day, and their guests are usually the best of the day , and the best interviewed also. Erin is very bright and knowledgeable considering her tender age, and Mark tends to keep most guests relatively honest, a good attribute to possess.
Cashin and Pisani also add good useful timely color commentary and comments. David Faber also does well most of the time.
The rest of the crew, including Kudlow <(esp.), Cramer (aargh),Kernen (ugh), Santelli (phew), Bartiromo, etc. and their close cohorts, could all take a permanent vacation and the show would be greatly improved.
Their propaganda and bias has gotten so thick and bad that I cannot watch them , even to get routine market data, etc.
If GE wants to kill the viewership of this program completely, then stay on the same track, that'll do the trick.
Guess GE's stock will be losing more green shoots too, with the support of GE capital and now CNBC. hahahahaha
Talking over guests and a little too much attitude from certain anchors certainly a problem. I find it interesting though that they're criticized for being too right and too left at the same time.
I still watch though, more to get a mood and temperature of the markets and politicians; they still do get some pretty good guests. If you have the patience to listen to what's said by all sides, filter out the extra noise and form your own opinion, net net they still have value.
We're not all brainless cheerleaders who deny reality and BOOYAH! the market at every opportunity.
On Jul 30 03:32 PM stockferret wrote:
> CNBCs problem right now is that it has gone so extreme to the right
> wing that it is competing with FOX News. It seems like most of the
> commentators are just trying out for positions working for Murdoch.
> More market and less political agenda would help boost the viewership.
from the one popular Peter Schiff, likely to contribute a bit to the decline in viewers. It makes in any case sense for learning and considering the experience (bad for too many who lost a lot).
www.youtube.com/watch?...
Lately I have been more satisfied with Bloomberg's coverage of the market/economic news. I can't comment definitively on cleavage, but (Asia Call) Bloomberg's Heidi Cooch has the Diphthongs!
The best was Ben Stein saying Merrill at 76 was so incredibly cheap they might as well be putting its shares in cereal boxes... guess that's why he's showing up on every 2nd rate commercial on TV, trying to get enough cash to buy some Cheerios.
And Art Laffer's one cent bet with Schiff about where the economy and housing was going, I guess there's a reason the only place he can show his face these days is after hours when no one's looking at him kiss up to his butt buddy Kudlow.
Just too too too funny!
On Jul 30 04:24 PM Joe wrote:
> And probably, rather late, insights that can be gained for instance
>
> from the one popular Peter Schiff, likely to contribute a bit to
> the decline in viewers. It makes in any case sense for learning and
> considering the experience (bad for too many who lost a lot).
> www.youtube.com/watch?...
Vested interests are a problem in market-followers. If they own stock, they want it to go up. If they are shorting stock, they want it to go down. We know MSNBC and Fox News twist the news to fit their perspectives, left and right; but we also know that there is some objective reality behind their opinions.
I am becoming so cynical about the markets that I'm beginning to suspect that the whole show is just another Barnum and Bailey Circus -- and we're all being taken to the cleaners by the barker and the fat lady and Tom Thumb.
As for the broader ratings, they could just be cyclically negative (or have lost their one-time doomsday pop), since the equity markets have been up so sharply lately. Sort of like how the Weather Channel loves a good hurricane?
On Jul 30 02:02 PM update wrote:
> pinhead.
>
> CNBC is and will forever be the tool of GE and Obama. The staff
> was publically threatened to only say great things about Hussein
> O.
>
> That's not remotely right wing.
Tyler Durden's readership up
I'd love to pile on the negative CNBC comments with you guys, but I do enjoy watching ERIN BURNETT.
ROFL, shes mine i tell you, all mine!
We are going to keep her back here in Australia, away from all the bad influences at CNBC in America.
BTW it's Amanda DRURY.
In all seriousness though, CNBC is a great program here in Australia, and actually FOX business is just as good, whilst bloomberg has Bernie Lo, who is very annoying.
BUT, if i watch these channels at night (US time in AUS) it is the complete opposite, Bloomberg is good, CNBC is sometimes OK (mostly not), and FOX is complete garbage.
If you Americans had the chance to watch the Aussie shows you would be absolutely blown away by the difference, intriguing guests, market authorities (as opposed to experts!) valuable interviews, no BS facts, and the list goes on.
I'm not joking, but 9 out ten people on the Aussie shows are worth listening to, as opposed to 1 out of 10 of the American people that claim to be experts.
Moral of the story, you guys are being ripped off and fed so much BS its not even funny. Amanda Drury is totally professional at CNBC Australia, and you would not even recognise her "performance" that is her presence on CNBC US.
Seriously, you guys should start a petition, demanding an Aussie programing structure.
Try listening to Bernie Lo all day, AAAHHH.
On Jul 30 02:57 PM mo_mentum wrote:
> Gentlemen prefer Bloomberg News
On Jul 30 02:04 PM ain't no fortunate son wrote:
> I totally agree cswalker and Bill L... I do a quick peek at the "news"
> around 8:00 a.m. for about 5 minutes, then Kernan opens his yap and
> I go to mute for another 5 minutes, then I shut the TV off for good,
> and never watch them for the rest of the day. They're nothing but
> a rant for the RNC and you're right, a 2nd rate substitute for Faux
> news.
>
> I get all I need online... wish my cable company up here provided
> Bloomberg, but I rent this condo so I have to take what the landlord's
> condo association provides.
>
> Kudlow, Kernan, Kneel, Gasparino, Cramer, Caruso-Cabrera, etal -
> what a pathetic lineup of clueless ideologues and shills.
>
> On Jul 30 01:51 PM cswalker21 wrote:
On Jul 30 01:48 PM Gravity404 wrote:
> So much better than Mark Hanes'
On Jul 30 02:57 PM mo_mentum wrote:
> Gentlemen prefer Bloomberg News
And for God's sake, the "Great Interrupter" Maria B makes me want to kill myself with a dull spoon.
Probably the worst commentary on TV. I get (got) better advice from Billy Mays
On Jul 30 04:05 PM Missing_Link wrote:
> If there's one sure bet in the world, it's this: short CNBC.