The thing you have to remember about some of the ratings is that the advertisers are only looking at specific ratings. They want the demographics that are going to get them buyers, not the over 60 crowd that isn't. So to put that in comparison to NCIS and House, while both may be drawing close to the same overall numbers, NCIS doesn't have the 18-49 demographic -- aka the big consumers -- that House does. So Fox can charge more for ads on House than CBS can for NCIS, so House is the more valuable commodity. Remember that shows like "Murder She Wrote," "Diagnosis Murder" and "JAG" were around for a long time and were big ratings winners, but never got the response that, say, an "NYPD Blue" did during the same time, despite drawing bigger numbers.

They want the demographics that are going to get them buyers, not the over 60 crowd that isn't. I wonder if this will begin to shift as more and more baby boomers hit the over 60 mark. Today's senior have a lot more disposable income than in the past, and are generally more "active" and they are certainly a growing demographic. I suspect, in future, they will become a resourse advertisers will want to tap!

It's begun to shift already. Advertisers used to think that once someone had their 50th birthday, they never bought another product other than the brands they already use (plus Depends and Metameusil.) Pharma (especially prescription drugs), financial companies, some electronics, travel and insurance are among those who realize that empty-nesters (the kids are gone) have a lot of discretionary income. One problem is that Media Buyer is about the lowest rung on the ad agency ladder. It pays diddly and, as a result, most of them are 22 years old and in their first job. And they want the ad campaign they're responsible for running in the magazines and tv shows they and their friends watch. I just ran some numbers on a variety of magazines. The size of the circulation makes a difference, of course, but a full page (in color) in the following magazines, advertisers pay: ESPN the Magazine - $188,500 Vogue - $132,480 People - $241,975 AARP - $446,700 If advertisers didn't think they could sell their products to seniors, they wouldn't advertise in AARP. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Much more interesting -- USA has a lot of House in the upcoming schedule. All times 11 pm: Friday, 11/23 - Ugly Saturday, 11/24 - Informed Consent Thursday, 11/29 - Love Hurts Friday, 11/30 - You Don't Want to Know Thursday, 12/6 - Cursed Friday, 12/7 - Games Thursday, 12/13 - Three Stories Friday, 12/14 - No Reason (10 pm); Meaning (11 pm) Thursday, 12/20 - Merry Little Christmas Friday, 12/21 - Kids Thursday, 12/27 - Honeymoon Friday, 12/28 - Hunting (10 pm); The Mistake (11 pm)

According to today's USA Today, there will be one House ep tonight, one next week, a couple in Dec, then one on Super Bowl Sunday, followed by the final one. Just when we were getting used to getting eps on a weekly basis :evil:

If they ran episodes on a weekly basis, all available episodes would be gone by the week before Christmas. Assuming there are actually 12 episodes and not the 13 your count from USA Today gives.

I though we weren't getting one on Nov 20 but on Nov 27 instead.

A new episode of the show is airing tonight.

Fast affiliate ratings from PI Feedback: At 9 p.m., leadership was shared as follows: Dancing With the Stars (ABC) Viewers: 20.74 million (#1), A18-49: 4.9/12 (#2) House (Fox) Viewers: 16.81 million (#2), A18-49: 6.8/17 (#1) Note that #2 in total viewers is for the timeslot. NCIS also had more total viewers. House is still up for the week year-to-year, but not by as much as it was earlier in the season. I can't remember when DwtS ended last year - that is certainly sucking off some live viewers, as the Tuesday results show is way up (like 3-5M viewers up) from earlier in the season.

I don't remember when it ended last year either, but they had more contestants this season than they ever have, so it stands to reason that if they started around the same time (which I think they did) that they'd be eating away at the "House" ratings for longer this year. They've also had far, far more publicity and outside drama surrounding this season, so they're probably also getting some people who are usually more casual, tivo to watch later viewers checking in on the live shows.

Does the same conglomerate that owns Yahoo own ABC? Yahoo news covers DWTS as though it was a major news story. Usually all that House gets each week are a few ads on one of the least watched networks while DWTS gets a constant drumroll of publicity. No wonder so much of TV is absolute crap. It's the crap that gets all the push from the media.

To the best of my knowledge, Disney has nothing to do with Yahoo. DWTS is a part of the genre that gets the tabloid level coverage. It's going to be talked about more because it's happening in real time, it involves a variety of "stars" that appeal to a broad spectrum and it's reality based. Beyond a clip or two a week and the occasional interview, there isn't much to post about "House". ET isn't going to be able to get Hugh Laurie's brother to come into the studio everyday to talk about him the way they can get Donny Osmond in there. TMZ doesn't have a segment every day about the stars of "House" trying to get into Hyde because the stars of "House" aren't out trying to get into Hyde. Even strictly basing coverage on the show itself, it doesn't really warrant that much from Yahoo, really. Reality shows traditionally get more time on sites like that because they draw in more people for more prime time hours per week and it's an interactive process. Plus, it's a two way street. They aren't cramming it down our throats without reason. We demand it and they give it to us. With shows like "House", the coverage tends to be in clumps at various parts of the season when the network makes their stars do large amounts of publicity at once. the DWTS cast are doing publicity on a daily basis. No wonder so much of TV is absolute crap. It's the crap that gets all the push from the media. I take issue with that, really. There is a lot of excellent, quality programming on right now. And it's doing quite well with both the public and the critics. So there's DWTS on twice a week? Don't watch it. Problem solved. There's a wide variety of programming out there beyond the reality genre. And this season has had an impressive number of decent to high quality shows that further break from the same old, same old. "Pushing Daisies" and "Chuck" are both unique and fun. "The Office" and "30 Rock" are both consistently funny and have seen growth. "Life" also shows a lot of promise if it can survive these next couple of months and, fortunately, after a less than interesting start to the season, "Heroes" seems to be regaining momentum as well. All I can hope is that the strike is resolved quickly so that new shows just gaining their footing and the shows that were fighting to keep their audiences from moving on to other shows don't find themselves filling the role of collateral damage.

I will be really glad when ET and Insider aren't all Osmonds all the time. Even if they will probably find something worse to obsess over next :) I think it's amazing House does as well as it does. Someone over on PI Feedback was surprised Monday's repeat didn't do better, since the show is episodic rather than serialized. But 7M people for a season 1 episode on a new day and time that I don't remember being advertised at all during Fox national programming? That's almost as good as most of the other Fox shows do with new episodes!

I take issue with that, really. There is a lot of excellent, quality programming on right now. And it's doing quite well with both the public and the critics I know you're right, but I just get so annoyed with some of the junk that gets so much attention. Grumble. Grumble. BTW, what's Hyde?