★★★★★ 0/5

Kath & Kim pulls good US audience

The first episode grabbed a strong audience. The only show in its timeslot to increase the all-important network share.

28
Leave a comment

Despite the disappointing press reviews, the US premiere of Kath and Kim took good numbers in the US.

It managed 7.5m viewers, which, while landing third in its timeslot behind Survivor and Ugly Betty enjoyed strong growth for the NBC timeslot.

In the US total numbers are not the same litmus test of ‘hit or miss’ as in Australia. NBC will look to compare how Kath and Kim fared in overall share and demographics. Kath & Kim came second in its slot with a 3.2 rating in 18-49. Survivor was first with a 4.6. Ugly Betty was third with a 2.7, the baseball 4th with a 2.0 and Smallville last with a 1.6.

Kath & Kim was up 3% on a new My Name is Earl in the same timeslot last week and up 7% on new 30 Rock in the same timeslot last year. That’s enough to keep NBC smiling so far.

By contrast Survivor was down 2% on its new episode year on year, while Betty down a massive 27% on a new episode a year ago, baseball was down 23% on a new 5th Grader last year for Fox. Smallville was down 20% on a new episode last year on CW.

That leaves Kath and Kim as the only show to grow the timeslot for any network, up 7% for NBC when most other networks were down 20% or so year on year.

By comparison, Grey’s Anatomy was down a massive 30% on its ep last year.

The overall viewers for the 8.30 timeslot were: Survivor (14.1million) Betty (8.6m) Kath & Kim (7.5m) baseball (6.5m) and Smallville (4.2m). All figures are “Live plus same day” which means live viewing and delayed DVR viewing up to midnight last night (same day of telecast).

An NBC insider told TV Tonight: “Kath and Kim overperformed (our expectations)! Which is always really nice! I think the estimate was a 2.2 or something so it was a great surprise!”

28 Responses

  1. Mate I “went Variety” when I was in nappies.

    I already have insiders at Aussie networks and have been rattling those cages for some time thanks. The power of the net is such that it has also brought in American sources too. The quote along with most of the facts was absolutely from within NBC to me and I’m satisfied it was authoritative enough on the matter.

  2. “An NBC insider told TV Tonight: “Kath and Kim overperformed (our expectations)! Which is always really nice! I think the estimate was a 2.2 or something so it was a great surprise!” ROFL!! NBC insider!

    Your not going variety on us now, next it will be very very very happy man with a backdrop of Hollywood behind him doing celebrity goss the whole time they are really a few miles out of Sydney.
    Last thing we need is ANOTHER blogger who claims to have an Tv Exec Insider.
    Try score a bunch of Aussie Network Insiders and start rattling cages here.

  3. maybe.. it didnt even look like a muffin top.. it was just her pants looked too tight..
    I dont think that they would tone down the muffin top because of dieting issues because there are “big” people in tv everywhere..

    I think its just selma blair didnt want to gain too much weight.. which is completely fine.. but she shouldnt have gotten the role then.. some actress’ get turned down because they arent skinny enough.. and i think it should have been reversed.

    Andrew did you find that they all seemed soo.. serious.. that it was no longer funny..? oh.. and where are the funny voices???!

  6. is it just me.. or is the camera-ing making everyone feel as though they are about to throw up.. too much movement.. i get motion sickness..

    selmar blair didnt gain enough weight for the character of kath.. they should have casted someone a bit bigger for the real impact..

    the person they ruined the most was BRETT!… peter rowsthorn is the only person who could be brett.. why does the american brett look like he’s 20 and something model.. thats not what brett is!

  7. Truly we’ve had some dud US sitcoms here over the years, but I don’t think anything was as bad as what USK&K debuted with. Just sucked any life out of the concept. Molly Shannon is certainly no “Kath”. Selma Blair does a barely passable job of “Kim” and what did they do to Brettie?? With Pete Rowsthorn in the role you could sympathise with Brett but the producers have just twinked him up to become “dude” Craig. Magda was right if reports are true that she stopped them using “Sharon”, but Gina & Jane must be laughing to the bank with this one, taking the yanks’ money and seeing the train wreck they’ve made of it!

  8. Saw a small snippet in the Sunday Mail about how Kath & Kim didn’t rate well.

    Good to see your site is keeping the finger on the pulse in terms of moving with the times on demographics etc.

  9. How on earth can ANY kind of demographic be extracted from the statistically minuscule (and unrepresentative) ratings sample?

    Until Australian TV ratings are done by an independent body – and with a much larger and broader sample size – they will remain they way they are; irrelevant data used for bragging rights, marketing and ad sales that has no connection to the real world.

  10. the US version isn’t that bad, so they aren’t overacting with voices, big deal, so there’s no sharon, big deal, the point of it was, “what would kath and kim be like as people if they were American?” and I think they did a good job at conveying the differencdes between our cultures whilst flushing out the similarities.. Get over that it ain’t exactly like the Australian original boo flippin hoo!!!

    pardon me, just sick of hearing people whinge about it

  12. The 2.2 means that 2.2% of all households in the 18-49 demo were tuned into the program.

    This is a good guide for how it all works. Another reason for demos over there is, to make a huge generalisation, half the audience for dancing with the stars aren’t important to advertisers. For heroes to match it in the demos with half the audience keeps things in perspective.

  13. “keep in mind everyone that the latest season of the Aus version was not funny at all and it was one of the best rating shows in a long while”

    Sorry, I didn’t know your opinion constituted a fact.

    I LOL’d at the last season.

  14. This 2.2, 3.7, etc stuff means 2.2 or 3.7 people out of 10 watched the show doesn’t it? Read something about how American ratings worked a while ago, but can’t remember exactly.

  17. keep in mind everyone that the latest season of the Aus version was not funny at all and it was one of the best rating shows in a long while

    i doubt the NBC people actually predicted 2.2 mil

    i think everyone should lighten up about US k&k now: an australian show did decently in america —- thats a good thing!

  18. I really hope this show is successful. I feel it’s going to grow into something great if given the chance, it just needs some time. I really enjoyed the first episode, well enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the first episode of the US The Office (c’mon that 1st ep was full on cringe, too, and look how that turned out).

    You can do it!

  19. CJ…..how did I know demographics vs total would come up?

    I’ve written previously about how networks here want to change the culture on ratings reports, and how that will take some time. Why? Because historically it’s been total audience and that’s what the audience understands.Why has it been this way? Because that’s what networks have traditionally issued to media. I can show you ratings reports from five years ago that only track total, not demographic. It’s fine to want this to shift, but don’t expect it to happen overnight.

    In 2008 Nine also changed the way it issues ratings, oddly at the same time as it lost the ratings crown. Last week its ratings report didn’t even detail its successes in total people. Why? There really weren’t any. Nope, no spin there.

    I mention demographics on an ongoing basis (including how TEN lost all demos last week and even in reporting individual shows such as 90210). Did News Limited bother to outline these?

    I agree there is no difference in the way US / Aus networks and advertisers view ratings info. There’s a big way the man in the street does. Frankly the media’s audience is not advertisers either. We’re here for context.

    It’s fine for you to defend TEN across the net’s various messageboards, and when the day comes that all 3 networks issue total + demographic info for 6pm – midnight (and not 6pm – 10:30pm, TEN), maybe the media will address the way the info is reported.

  21. Nine would be happy with the CSI premiere, though Seven would be worried – one it’s powerhouses, Grey’s, dropped to 14.54 million viewers, and more importantly, lost both the 18-49 & 18-34 demo’s
    Whilst thats still more than other hit series (such as House) its still a long way off its highs of last season

  23. David…the TEN Network have been reporting advertiser friendly demographics for years…and especially 18-49 for the last few years…and yet the media here still report it as “spin” and do not take it seriously. The media in the US have realised the importance of the younger demographic and so therefore have been reporting accordingly, giving equal wins to shows that have more 18-49s watching as well as total people.
    Advertisers in both countries place more importance on demographics than total people, the difference is the way the media report it.
    Also…TEN have also maintained that they run their own race against themselves with year-on-year results…if they can increase their share of audience in a timeslot compared to the previous year…then they are happy.
    There is no difference in the way the networks or advertisers here interpret the ratings compared to America…just the media’s interpretation.

Leave a Reply