TV Ratings: Oscars Drop Again in Early Numbers

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...numbers-980854

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 8:04:35 AM UTC-8, burfordTjustice wrote:
TV Ratings: Oscars Drop Again in Early Numbers

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...numbers-980854

Only the lunatic left was watching and I bet the shows sponsors are
having second thoughts on all the money they just wasted.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:15:23 -0800 (PST), wrote in


On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 8:04:35 AM UTC-8, burfordTjustice wrote:
TV Ratings: Oscars Drop Again in Early Numbers

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...numbers-980854

Only the lunatic left was watching and I bet the shows sponsors are
having second thoughts on all the money they just wasted.

That's good news. From the article above

In the key demo of adults 18-49, this year's show averaged a 9.1
rating — off a more dramatic 14 percent from the 2016 telecast, which
averaged a 10.5 rating among the advertiser-favored viewers.

--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 2/28/2017 3:59 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:15:23 -0800 (PST), wrote in


On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 8:04:35 AM UTC-8, burfordTjustice wrote:
TV Ratings: Oscars Drop Again in Early Numbers

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...numbers-980854

Only the lunatic left was watching and I bet the shows sponsors are
having second thoughts on all the money they just wasted.

That's good news. From the article above

In the key demo of adults 18-49, this year's show averaged a 9.1
rating — off a more dramatic 14 percent from the 2016 telecast, which
averaged a 10.5 rating among the advertiser-favored viewers.


Ohhh some heads are going to roll now when they can't charge a bazillion
$$ for placing ads, now.

--
Maggie